This is an early access version
Department of Nursing and Health , College of Health Sciences, College of Health Sciences , Doboj , Bosnia and Herzegovina
,
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Banja Luka , Banja Luka , Bosnia and Herzegovina
Department of Nursing and Health Care, College of Health Sciences, College of Health Sciences , Doboj , Bosnia and Herzegovina
Department of Nursing and Health Care, College of Health Sciences, College of Health Sciences , Doboj , Bosnia and Herzegovina
Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Banja Luka , Banja Luka , Bosnia and Herzegovina
Introduction. This study analyzed the factors influencing the outcome of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in women with infertility issues. The investigation focused on endometrial thickness, the number of retrieved oocytes, and the number of obtained embryos as potential predictors of ART success.
Method. A health-epidemiological questionnaire of general data was created for the purposes of this study. Various statistical methods were applied for data analysis. Descriptive statistical parameters for the observed parameters were pre
sented, including the arithmetic mean (M), standard deviation (SD), skewness (Sk), and kurtosis (Ku), to examine deviations from the normal distribution. Multiple regression analysis was applied to investigate the relationships of the independent variables with the dependent variable.
Results. The study included 100 women of reproductive age. Endometrial thickness was not a significant predictor of ART
outcome. Conversely, the number of retrieved oocytes and the number of obtained embryos were identified as significant predictors of ART success. Participants with positive ART outcomes demonstrated a lower number of retrieved oocytes
but a higher number of obtained embryos.
Conclusion. These findings highlight the importance of embryo quality in the implantation process. Further research is
needed to better understand this dynamic and to improve infertility treatments.
Conceptualization, D.T.; Data curation, D.T. and D.Č.; Formal Analysis, D.T., D.Č., M.T., S.S. and D.M.; Funding acquisition, D.T.; Investigation, D.T. and D.Č.; Methodology, D.T. and D.Č.; Project administration, D.T.; Resources, D.T.; Software, D.T. and D.Č.; Supervision, D.T., M.T., S.S. and D.M.; Validation, D.T., M.T., S.S. and D.M.; Visualization, D.T.; Writing – original draft, D.T.; Writing – review & editing, D.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Authors retain copyright. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.