Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF ) Freely available
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bergh, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bergh, C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Human Reproduction, Vol. 14, No. 6, 1418-1420, June 1999
© 1999 European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Debate

Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone

Christina Bergh

Centre of Reproductive Medicine Sahlgrenska University Hospital, S-41345 Göteborg, Sweden

The lead debate (Meniru, 1999) on recombinant gonadotrophins points to an important clinical problem – how can clinicians evaluate and use the recently available recombinant gonadotrophins? The author also questions the marketing performed by the medical industry of these new preparations. Even though I agree with some of the critical remarks made by Dr Meniru, I think one has to admit that the recombinant gonadotrophins bear clear advantages in comparison with the older urinary preparations.

The manufacture of human follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) by recombinant DNA technology makes production independent of urine collection and guarantees a high availability of a biochemically pure FSH preparation free from urinary protein contaminants. The purification process yields . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Notes

References


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
H. Al-Inany, M. Aboulghar, R. Mansour, and G. Serour
Meta-analysis of recombinant versus urinary-derived FSH: an update
Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2003; 18(2): 305 - 313.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
J.E.F. Zwart-van Rijkom, F.J. Broekmans, and H.G.M. Leufkens
From HMG through purified urinary FSH preparations to recombinant FSH: a substitution study
Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2002; 17(4): 857 - 865.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
J. Harlin, A. Aanesen, G. Csemiczky, H. Wramsby, and G. Fried
Delivery rates following IVF treatment, using two recombinant FSH preparations for ovarian stimulation
Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2002; 17(2): 304 - 309.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
H. J. Out, I. David, R. Ron-El, S. Friedler, E. Shalev, J. Geslevich, J. Dor, A. Shulman, Z. Ben-Rafael, B. Fisch, et al.
A randomized, double-blind clinical trial using fixed daily doses of 100 or 200 IU of recombinant FSH in ICSI cycles
Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2001; 16(6): 1104 - 1109.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Hum ReprodHome page
H. J. Out, H. J.T.C. Bennink, and W. N.G.M. de Laat
What are the clinical benefits of recombinant gonadotrophins?: The development of recombinant FSH (Puregon(R)): a scientific business
Hum. Reprod., September 1, 1999; 14(9): 2189 - 2190.
[Full Text] [PDF]