Reply of the Authors: Recurrent implantation failure: reality or a statistical mirage?

We thank Rozen et al. ( 1 Rozen G. Rogers P. Teh W.T. Stern C.J. Polyakov A. An algorithm to personalize the diagnosis of recurrent implantation failure based on the theoretical cumulative implantation rate. Hum Reprod. 2021; 36: 1463-1468 Crossref PubMed Scopus (11) Google Scholar ) for their interest in our article, “Recurrent implantation failure: reality or a statistical mirage?” ( 2 (The writing group) for the participants to the 2022 Lugano RIF Workshop, Pirtea P, Cedars MI, Devine K, Ata B, Franasiak J, et al. Recurrent implantation failure (RIF): reality or a statistical mirage? Consensus statement from the July 1, 2022 Lugano Workshop on repeated implantation failures (RIF). Fertil Steril. In press. Google Scholar ). We appreciate their compliments and are glad to know that they agree with our view that RIF is a rare event, affecting <5% of patients receiving antiretroviral therapy ( 2 (The writing group) for the participants to the 2022 Lugano RIF Workshop, Pirtea P, Cedars MI, Devine K, Ata B, Franasiak J, et al. Recurrent implantation failure (RIF): reality or a statistical mirage? Consensus statement from the July 1, 2022 Lugano Workshop on repeated implantation failures (RIF). Fertil Steril. In press. Google Scholar ). Tackling the RIF mirage with theoretical cumulative implantation rateFertility and SterilityVol. 120Issue 1PreviewWe read with great interest the expert consensus “Recurrent Implantation Failure (RIF): Reality or a Statistical Mirage?” A consensus statement from July 1, 2022, Lugano Workshop on repeated implantation failures (RIF) (1),” and congratulate you on addressing this important clinical topic, surrounded by much confusion, uncertainty, and very little evidence basis. A consensus from recognized experts in the field is indeed overdue and crucial. Full-Text PDF