Transcription of ASRM mUllerian anomalies classification 2021
{{id}} {{{paragraph}}}
Example: confidence
ASRM mUllerian anomalies classification 2021
ASRM m ullerian anomaliesclassification 2021 Samantha M. Pfeifer, , Marjan Attaran, , Jessica Goldstein, ,Steven R. Lindheim, , , John C. Petrozza, , Beth W. Rackow, ,Evan Siegelman, , Robert Troiano, , Thomas Winter, , Andrea Zuckerman, ,and Sarah D. Ramaiah, are many proposed classification systems for m ullerian anomalies . The American Fertility Society (AFS) classification from 1988has been the most recognized and utilized. The advantages of this iconic classification include its simplicity, recognizability, and cor-relation with clinical pregnancy outcomes. However, the AFS classification has been criticized for its focus primarily on uterine anom-alies, with exclusion of those of the vagina and cervix, its lack of clear diagnostic criteria, and its inability to classify complexaberrations. Despite this classification and others, the wide range of m ullerian anomalies is still largely unknown and confusing tomany providers.
porate changes and additions over time. 3 Standardize Terminology to Simplify Communication and Recognizability The Task Force felt that the best way to communicate the essence of the anomalies was through descriptive words. Forexample, describingan anomalyto acolleagueas ‘‘uterus didelphys, duplicated cervix, with obstructed right hemiva-
Tags:
Information
Domain:
Source:
Link to this page:
Please notify us if you found a problem with this document: