IVF News

Vitrification technique and outcomes: cooling rates exceeding 15,000 degrees Celsius per minute, elimination of ice crystal formation, post-warming survival rates consistently above 90 percent in experienced laboratories, and the NYU Langone outcome data showing 70 percent live birth rate from 20 or more vitrified oocytes thawed before age 38.

Cryoprotectant protocol: the dehydration step using permeating agents (ethylene glycol, DMSO) and non-permeating agents (sucrose), the critical timing window, and how protocol quality translates directly into post-warming survival.

Storage infrastructure: the clinical significance of the -130 degree Celsius glass transition temperature, the consequences of temperature excursions above this threshold for stored oocytes, HFEA continuous monitoring requirements for licensed UK facilities, and the cross-contamination risk implications of screw-cap versus hermetically sealed container systems.

Outcome data and patient communication: the NYU Langone cohort findings on egg number thresholds, the declining mean age at freezing (36.9 to 35.0 years across an 8-year, 4,659-cycle study), and the unexpectedly low return-to-use rate that raises questions about whether the procedure is reaching the patients who would most benefit from earlier intervention.

Warming protocol requirements: ice recrystallisation prevention during the -130 to 0 degree Celsius transition, stepwise cryoprotectant dilution, and the consequences of protocol deviation at this stage.

The guide is aimed at a mixed readership of practitioners and informed patients and may serve as a useful reference for patient education discussions

Cryolab has published a detailed guide covering:

Vapour phase storage and cross-contamination: the HFEA has been moving towards clearer guidance on closed carrier systems and vapour phase storage for licensed facilities, with implications for the cryovials and storage devices used in clinical practice. The consent question: both gamete providers must provide ongoing consent for embryo storage across the entire storage period. The practical and legal implications of this over a 55-year window are significant.

Clinical equipment requirements: liquid nitrogen storage tanks must maintain -196 degrees Celsius continuously, with vacuum integrity preserved and monitoring systems operational across multi-decade storage periods.

Expert commentary from Paul Hague, Director of Cryolab, who introduced the controlled-rate freezer to Professor Robert Edwards and has attended 42 consecutive ESHRE Annual Meetings.

Embryo transfer is one of the shortest procedures in an IVF cycle, but it carries disproportionate clinical importance. An embryo that has undergone days of culture and careful assessment must be delivered through the cervix and deposited within the uterine cavity with minimal trauma, contamination or disturbance. This has encouraged fertility centres to adopt a range of preparatory techniques intended to make the procedure easier and improve the probability of implantation.

An updated Cochrane review has examined whether three common approaches actually improve reproductive outcomes: asking the patient to have a full bladder, removing cervical mucus before transfer and using an afterloading technique. The conclusion is not that these practices are ineffective. It is that the available evidence remains too limited and uncertain to demonstrate a reliable benefit.

The distinction matters. Failure to establish an effect is not the same as establishing that there is no effect. The review found that most trials were small, several were methodologically weak and important outcomes were often missing. Live birth, the outcome of greatest relevance to patients and clinicians, was particularly poorly reported.

The review included 11 randomised studies involving 2,524 women undergoing embryo transfer. The literature search was completed in October 2025, updating a review first published in 2009. Three new studies were added, but they did not materially change the earlier conclusions. Evidence certainty across the main comparisons was rated low or very low.

A full bladder is commonly requested before embryo transfer because it can alter the uterocervical angle and facilitate passage of the transfer catheter. It can also improve the transabdominal ultrasound window when ultrasound guidance is used. These are plausible procedural advantages, particularly in patients with pronounced uterine anteversion.

However, the review found very uncertain evidence regarding whether a full bladder improves pregnancy rates, reduces pregnancy loss or makes transfer less difficult. Pregnancy data came from two studies involving 273 women. Pregnancy loss was reported in one study of 131 women, while transfer difficulty was assessed in one study of 142 women. None of the studies reported live birth.

The evidence therefore does not support the assumption that easier catheter passage necessarily translates into better reproductive outcomes. A full bladder may still be useful for anatomical or imaging reasons in an individual procedure, but its routine use as a method of increasing pregnancy or live birth rates is not supported by reliable comparative data. Patient discomfort should also be considered, especially when treatment delays leave patients waiting with an excessively full bladder.

Cervical mucus removal is intended to prevent mucus from obstructing the catheter or contaminating its tip. It may also reduce the chance that an embryo will be retained in mucus during catheter withdrawal. These mechanisms are credible, but the clinical evidence remains inconclusive.

One study reported 52 live births among 220 cycles in which cervical mucus was removed, compared with 42 among 205 cycles without removal. The numerical difference was not sufficient to establish a reliable treatment effect. Pregnancy outcomes were similarly unconvincing. One study involving 97 women suggested little or no difference, while another reported 65 pregnancies in 220 cycles with mucus removal and 63 in 205 cycles without it.

Pregnancy loss was reported as 15 events among 220 cycles in the mucus removal group and 20 among 205 cycles in the comparison group. Again, these data do not provide a sufficiently precise estimate to determine whether the intervention is beneficial.

Mucus removal is generally a quick procedure, but it is not entirely neutral. Vigorous manipulation can cause cervical irritation or bleeding, potentially complicating transfer and affecting the patient’s experience. Adverse events were rarely reported in the included trials, leaving uncertainty about both minor procedural effects and less common complications.

The third technique, embryo afterloading, separates catheter placement from embryo loading. An empty outer catheter is first guided through the cervix. The embryo is then loaded into an inner catheter and passed through the catheter already in position. This may reduce the embryo’s exposure to cervical mucus, blood or a technically difficult cervical passage.

Two studies involving 654 women indicated that afterloading may make little or no difference to pregnancy rates compared with direct embryo transfer. One study of 352 women also found little or no difference in pregnancy loss. Live birth was not reported.

Findings for transfer difficulty were inconsistent. One study suggested that afterloading could make transfer easier, while another reported no difficult transfers in either group. These results are insufficient to determine whether the technique has a clinically important procedural advantage.

The review’s central finding is therefore one of unresolved uncertainty. None of the three techniques is supported by evidence of sufficient quality to justify its routine use specifically as a means of increasing pregnancy or live birth rates. At the same time, the review does not provide a basis for abandoning techniques that serve a practical purpose in selected patients.

This is particularly important when translating the findings into laboratory and clinical policy. The review addressed preparation techniques, not every component of embryo transfer. It did not establish that catheter selection, ultrasound guidance, embryo deposition site, operator experience or management of a previously difficult transfer are unimportant. Nor did it compare broader decisions such as embryo stage, embryo number, fresh versus frozen transfer or endometrial preparation protocols.

Local practice may also reflect logistical considerations that were not captured adequately by the trials. A moderately full bladder may provide a better ultrasound image. Mucus removal may be useful when secretions visibly interfere with catheter passage. Afterloading may be preferred after a difficult mock transfer or when cervical anatomy makes direct transfer challenging. These decisions can remain reasonable without being presented as proven methods of improving live birth.

For clinics, the findings support a more precise conversation about why each step is performed. A procedure may be adopted because it improves visualisation, facilitates catheter placement, supports workflow or addresses a specific anatomical difficulty. That rationale should be separated from a claim that the same procedure increases IVF success.

The evidence gap is notable because these are simple, inexpensive and widely used interventions. Sixteen years after the original Cochrane review, the field still lacks adequately powered trials with consistent reporting of live birth and adverse effects. Research attention has increasingly focused on embryo competence, genetics and laboratory technology, while the physical process of transfer remains difficult to study and standardise.

Future trials should use live birth per woman randomised as a primary outcome and report clinical pregnancy, pregnancy loss, transfer difficulty, pain, bleeding, infection and embryo retention consistently. They should document catheter type, ultrasound guidance, operator experience, uterine position, previous difficult transfers, embryo stage and fresh or frozen status. Stratification by anatomical and procedural complexity could reveal whether an intervention that offers little benefit in routine transfers is valuable in a defined subgroup.

Multicentre studies would improve statistical power and reduce the influence of individual operators or local protocols. Research in a wider range of healthcare environments is also needed. Simple procedural changes may have different implications where access to advanced imaging, specialised catheters or highly experienced transfer clinicians is limited.

For now, the most scientifically defensible position is measured rather than prescriptive. Full bladder preparation, cervical mucus removal and embryo afterloading may remain useful components of individualised practice, but none can currently be described as a reliably proven method for improving IVF success. Clinics should balance procedural feasibility, anatomy, operator judgement and patient comfort while being transparent about the uncertainty.

Sources

6 August 2026. Cochrane

• No clear evidence that common embryo transfer techniques improve IVF success

6 August 2026. Cochrane Library

• Techniques for preparation prior to embryo transfer

6 August 2026. Medical Daily

• Cochrane review finds no reliable evidence that three common IVF transfer techniques improve pregnancy rates

6 August 2026. Bioengineer

• Study finds no clear IVF benefit from common embryo transfer techniques

Fertility medicine has long recognised that conception and pregnancy depend on both partners, yet much of the biological investigation surrounding IVF and recurrent pregnancy loss still focuses on the woman. A large Danish study now adds a potentially important male contribution to the picture: the microbial community carried in semen.

Published in The Lancet Obstetrics, Gynaecology, & Women’s Health, the study examined gut, vaginal and seminal microbiomes in two prospective cohorts of couples receiving fertility care or evaluation for recurrent pregnancy loss. The findings do not establish that microbial imbalance causes infertility or miscarriage. They do, however, identify a seminal bacterial profile associated with lower conception and live birth rates and substantially higher odds of pregnancy loss.

The human microbiome is not limited to the gastrointestinal tract. Microbial communities also occupy the reproductive system, including semen. These communities are not necessarily harmful, and their presence should not be confused with a conventional infection caused by a single pathogen. The relevant question is whether the balance and function of the community support reproductive health or represent a state of dysbiosis.

Previous reproductive microbiome research has concentrated heavily on the vagina and endometrium. This emphasis is biologically understandable because these environments directly support implantation and pregnancy. It has also left two potentially influential compartments comparatively understudied: the female gut and the male seminal microbiome.

The new study approached reproduction as a biological system shared by a couple. Researchers analysed samples from more than 350 women and approximately 190 male partners recruited through two Copenhagen University Hospital cohorts. One cohort included couples undergoing IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The other included couples affected by recurrent pregnancy loss. Recruitment occurred between 2018 and 2023, with participants followed for pregnancy and live birth outcomes.

Vaginal and faecal samples were collected from the women, while semen samples were obtained from the male partners. The researchers used shotgun metagenomic sequencing to characterise the microbial communities, providing greater taxonomic resolution than culture-based methods and many targeted sequencing approaches.

A central finding was the identification of what the investigators called seminal V-dysbiosis. This was a seminal microbiome pattern resembling vaginal community state type IV, a diverse bacterial configuration commonly associated with vaginal dysbiosis and bacterial vaginosis. The classification describes a community-level pattern rather than the presence of one specific infectious organism.

Seminal V-dysbiosis was detected in 23 of 96 men in the IVF cohort, representing 24%, and in 39 of 96 men assessed in the recurrent pregnancy loss cohort, representing 41%. Across the two cohorts, this profile was independently associated with higher odds of pregnancy loss. The pooled odds ratio was 2.56, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.42 to 4.63.

The association remained after adjustment for factors including age, body mass index and infertility diagnosis. In the IVF cohort, seminal V-dysbiosis was also associated with reduced odds of conception per embryo transfer, with an odds ratio of 0.41.

The cumulative live birth figures make the potential clinical relevance easier to see. Among couples undergoing IVF or ICSI, 57% of those in whom the male partner had seminal dysbiosis ultimately achieved a live birth, compared with 85% of couples without the profile.

This microbial information would not be captured by a conventional semen analysis. Standard testing evaluates variables such as sperm concentration, motility and morphology. These remain essential measures of male reproductive function, but they do not describe the bacterial community in seminal fluid. A man could therefore have apparently satisfactory conventional parameters while carrying a microbial profile that may still be relevant to treatment outcome.

The female gut microbiome produced a separate signal. Greater gut dysbiosis was associated with reduced odds of conception in both cohorts, although it was not associated with pregnancy loss. The corresponding odds ratios were 0.76 in the IVF cohort and 0.54 in the recurrent pregnancy loss cohort.

Several mechanisms could plausibly connect the intestinal microbiome with fertility. Gut microorganisms influence systemic inflammation, immune regulation, metabolism and hormone processing, all of which may affect ovarian function, endometrial receptivity or early pregnancy. The present study did not determine which, if any, of these pathways explains the observed association.

Perhaps the most unexpected result concerned the vaginal microbiome. Despite being the compartment most frequently investigated in reproductive microbiome studies, vaginal community composition showed no consistent association with conception, pregnancy loss or live birth in these cohorts. This does not demonstrate that the vaginal microbiome is irrelevant. Previous studies have produced associations between vaginal dysbiosis and adverse reproductive outcomes, and differences in sampling, populations, laboratory methods and clinical endpoints can influence results. The finding does show why examining one microbial compartment in isolation may provide an incomplete picture.

The seminal association raises several mechanistic possibilities. Microorganisms and their products in semen are introduced directly into the female reproductive tract during intercourse. They could alter the local microbial ecosystem, influence mucosal immune signalling or modify the inflammatory environment in which implantation occurs. Seminal microbes might also affect sperm function before fertilisation. These possibilities remain hypotheses because the study was designed to identify associations rather than biological causation.

The work also has important limitations. It was observational, so dysbiosis may be a marker of another reproductive or health factor rather than a direct cause of failure. Some subgroup analyses were based on relatively small numbers. The seminal V-dysbiosis classification was exploratory and requires validation in independent populations. The participants were treated in Denmark, and microbiome composition can vary with geography, diet, lifestyle, medication exposure and population background.

Embryo and pregnancy-loss tissue were not comprehensively assessed for chromosomal status. This is particularly important because embryonic aneuploidy is a major cause of miscarriage and could not be fully separated from the microbial associations. The study also lacked a large comparison cohort of proven fertile couples with uncomplicated pregnancies.

Most importantly, no microbiome-directed treatment was tested. The findings do not show that antibiotics, probiotics, dietary changes or other interventions can improve conception or live birth rates. Indiscriminate antibiotic treatment could disrupt beneficial organisms and contribute to antimicrobial resistance. Clinical intervention should therefore await replicated associations, validated diagnostic definitions and controlled trials demonstrating that modifying the microbiome changes reproductive outcomes.

The immediate value of the study is conceptual. It encourages fertility specialists to regard the reproductive microbiome as a network involving both partners and several connected body sites. It also reinforces the need to investigate the male partner beyond the minimum required to obtain sperm for treatment.

If the findings are confirmed, seminal microbiome profiling could eventually complement conventional semen analysis in selected cases of unexplained infertility, repeated treatment failure or recurrent pregnancy loss. A clinically useful test would need reproducible sampling, robust control of contamination, standardised definitions of dysbiosis and evidence that the result leads to an intervention that improves outcomes.

For now, seminal dysbiosis should be viewed as a promising biomarker under investigation. The study does not offer a ready-made treatment, but it identifies a previously neglected biological variable and provides a strong reason to study fertility at the level of the couple rather than one partner alone.

Sources

4 August 2026. The Lancet

• Gut, vaginal, and seminal microbiomes in couples with infertility or recurrent pregnancy loss: a two-cohort prospective study of reproductive outcomes

5 August 2026. Medical Xpress

• A bacterial imbalance in men's semen may influence the chances of having a baby

6 August 2026. El Pais

• Bacteria in semen also condition pregnancy success: 'Fertility clinics still focus mainly on the woman'

5 August 2026. The Sun

• New 'overlooked' cause of miscarriage linked to fertility revealed – but it’s 'treatable', say experts

6 August 2026. Health and Me

• Bacterial imbalance In semen linked to male infertility, pregnancy loss: The Lancet

ESHRE 2026 took place at ExCeL London from 5 to 8 July. Cryolab exhibited at stand D08, presenting its current range of liquid nitrogen storage vessels, dry shippers, controlled rate freezers, and cryogenic consumables to visitors from fertility clinics, NHS trusts, university hospitals, and research institutions. Paul Hague attended the meeting for the 42nd consecutive year, having been present at every ESHRE Annual Meeting since the founding event in Bonn in 1985.

The CryoStork dry shipper range and CryoNest liquid nitrogen storage vessel series were among the products on display. Both carry UKCA and CE markings and are specified for HFEA-regulated IVF settings.

The XVth International Symposium on Spermatology at the University of Birmingham (29 July to 2 August 2026) is the first time in the event's 57-year history that it has been hosted in the United Kingdom. The symposium is chaired by Professor Jackson Kirkman-Brown MBE and covers spermatogenesis and genetics, ejaculation and the fertilisation environment, sperm function, and broader questions in sperm biology. Cryolab attended as a sponsor, reflecting the company's 40-year history of supplying andrology laboratories worldwide.

For the full product range, visit https://cryolab.co.uk/shop/ or use CryoGPT for immediate technical queries at https://cryolab.co.uk/cryogpt

Cryolab, a specialist supplier of cryogenic equipment and consumables to the IVF, fertility, and research sectors, has published guidance identifying consumables specification as an underrecognised risk factor in IVF laboratory practice.

While storage vessels, controlled rate freezers, and dry shippers are typically subject to rigorous specification and verification processes in UK IVF laboratories, the consumables that form the sample storage chain - cryocanes, cryosleeves, visotubes, and goblets - are frequently treated as interchangeable and procured on price or availability rather than performance specification.

The guidance, produced by Cryolab founder Paul Hague, who has supplied IVF laboratories with cryogenic equipment and consumables for over 40 years, outlines the specific failure modes this approach creates.

Every cryopreserved sample in an IVF laboratory passes through a chain of consumables before reaching the storage vessel. A goblet holds the visotube or straw. The goblet loads onto a cryocane. The cryocane, protected by a cryosleeve, is suspended inside the vessel. Each component must perform reliably at -195.8 degrees C and must be dimensionally compatible with the other components in the chain.

When those conditions are not met, the failures tend to be quiet: a cryosleeve that becomes brittle at cryogenic temperature and cracks during retrieval, destroying the identification label; a goblet that does not seat correctly on the cryocane, allowing sample displacement; a cryocane incompatible with the vessel's canister system, sitting at an angle and exposing samples to slightly elevated temperatures near the vessel neck.

Paul Hague commented: "The laboratories that get consumables right treat them as part of the storage system, not as a separate purchasing decision. A cryocane that does not fit the canister correctly, or a cryosleeve that fails at cryogenic temperature, does not just create a practical problem - it creates a traceability problem."

The guidance addresses specific material distinctions - including the thermal conductivity advantages of aluminium cryocanes over stainless steel at the point of liquid nitrogen plunge, and the performance advantages of biological sample sleeves over standard PVC formulations at cryogenic temperatures - alongside the compatibility requirements for goblets and visotubes across different cane systems.

Cryolab supplies cryogenic consumables for IVF laboratories including cryocanes (full size and half size, aluminium and stainless steel), cryosleeves (standard PVC and biological sample), visotubes, and goblets, specified as a compatible system for use with cryogenic storage vessels in clinical and andrology settings. The company holds ISO 9001:2015 certification and operates as the exclusive UK and Ireland distributor for CryoBioSystems.

Full guidance and consumables range: cryolab.co.uk/ivf-consumables/

About Cryolab Cryolab was established in 2000 and is based in Chichester on the South Coast of England. The company specialises in cryogenic equipment and consumables for IVF, biological research, blood banking, tissue banking, and cell banking, supplying NHS hospitals, private hospitals, IVF clinics, and research facilities globally. Cryolab holds ISO 9001:2015 BSI Quality Management System certification.

Contact us - Cryolab

Why This Program Stands Out

This program integrates two closely connected areas of practice:

• advanced clinical andrology
• comprehensive men’s health

The curriculum is informed by applicable principles and major professional guidance relevant to:

• Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute practice
• College of American Pathologists quality standards
• American Urological Association guidance
• internationally recognized male infertility recommendations
• reproductive laboratory quality-management principles
• major international andrology and men’s health guidelines

Program Duration and Delivery

The program is delivered:

• fully online
• over 13 weeks
• through structured specialist modules

Eligibility

Applicants should ordinarily possess:

• a recognized university degree; and
• relevant work experience, academic preparation, or demonstrated interest in healthcare, biomedical science, laboratory medicine, reproductive health, fertility services, men’s health, or a related discipline.

Applications are welcomed from:

• physicians
• medical graduates
• medical laboratory scientists
• biomedical scientists
• clinical embryologists
• fertility-clinic personnel

Applications are assessed individually.

Award

Participants who successfully complete the required modules, assignments, assessments, and final competency requirements will receive the:

Dip.H.Sp™ in Clinical Andrology & Men’s Health

Diplomate of High Specialist Practice

The award confirms successful completion of advanced professional training. Registration Information / application procedure:

To apply for any of the programs,  application processing fee must received, we will email you 2 forms, to be filled out , scanned and emailed back to us with your current resume or cv, again e-mail [email protected]

For more information visit Clinical Embryology Dip.H.SpTM. Certification

email us at [email protected]

Why This Program Stands Apart

This is more than an introductory IVF course.

The program is designed to build specialist knowledge, professional judgment, scientific confidence, and a strong understanding of quality-controlled embryology practice.

The curriculum is informed by applicable principles and major professional guidance relevant to reproductive laboratory medicine, including:

• Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute principles
• College of American Pathologists quality standards
• major international IVF and reproductive medicine guidelines
• internationally recognized laboratory quality-management principles
• ethical and patient-safety standards applicable to assisted reproduction

Program Duration and Delivery

The program is delivered:

• fully online
• over 13 weeks
• through structured specialist modules
• with directed reading
• case-based learning
• practical demonstrations
• interpretive exercises

The online structure allows participants to continue working while completing advanced specialist training from any country.

Eligibility

Applicants should ordinarily possess:

• a recognized university degree; and
• relevant work experience, academic preparation, or demonstrated interest in healthcare, biomedical science, laboratory medicine, reproductive health, fertility services, or a related discipline.

Registration Information / application procedure:

To apply for any of the programs,  application processing fee must received, we will email you 2 forms, to be filled out , scanned and emailed back to us with your current resume or cv, again e-mail [email protected]

For more information visit Clinical Embryology Dip.H.SpTM. Certification

email us at [email protected]

Chennai Fertility Centre and Research Institute, offering an Post Graduate Diploma in Clinical Embryology and Preimplantation Genetics association with Bharathiar University.

Our mission is to provide

• Extensive hands-on training
• Unlock new opportunities with advanced learning
• State-of-the Art facilities
•  In-depth theoretical knowledge and practical skills
•  Specialized training for Career support 

Eligibility:

Under Graduation and Post-Graduation in any Life Sciences, Bio Medical Sciences, Medical Sciences and Veterinary Sciences from a recognized university

Join Us! Our program details and admission process

• Contact : 9003111598 / 8428278218
• Mail: [email protected]

IVF Store has released two new educational resources designed to help IVF laboratories strengthen their procedures, staff training and competency documentation.

The resources—an extensive IVF laboratory procedure manual and a clinical training and sign-off manual—are available free of charge and have been reviewed by IVF Store’s Scientific Advisory Board.

IVF Laboratory Procedure Manual

The new IVF Laboratory Procedure Manual provides laboratories with a detailed framework for documenting everyday embryology and andrology operations.

Its coverage includes:

Patient and specimen identification, labeling and witnessing

Laboratory preparation and recordkeeping

Semen assessment, preparation and cryopreservation

Oocyte retrieval and handling

Conventional insemination and ICSI

Embryo culture, grading, biopsy and transfer

Vitrification, warming and cryostorage

Quality control and equipment maintenance

Air quality and VOC monitoring

Staff training, competency and document control

The manual draws on recommendations from organizations including ASRM, ESHRE and Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine. It is structured as an educational template that laboratories can adapt by adding their own validated parameters, equipment instructions, responsibilities, forms and approval processes.

Clinical IVF Training and Sign-Off Manual

The accompanying Clinical IVF Training and Sign-Off Manual is designed to support structured staff development and competency assessment.

It gives laboratory leaders and trainers a practical framework for recording observation, supervised practice, competency evaluation and authorization for independent work. Used alongside a laboratory’s procedures, the resource can help make training expectations clearer and create a more consistent, traceable sign-off process.

This may be particularly useful when onboarding new embryologists and andrologists, introducing new techniques or documenting continued competency within an established team.

A Starting Point for Local Adoption

Both resources are intended as adaptable educational templates rather than ready-made replacements for a laboratory’s controlled documents. Each laboratory remains responsible for reviewing and validating its procedures, incorporating site-specific requirements and complying with applicable regulations, accreditation standards, manufacturers’ instructions and institutional policies.

For laboratories developing new documentation—or reviewing and harmonizing existing systems—the manuals offer a valuable starting point and a practical reference for discussion among laboratory directors, quality managers, trainers and technical staff.

Explore the resources:

IVF Laboratory Procedure Manual

Clinical IVF Training and Sign-Off Manual