Objective: The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes of gonadotropinreleasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and GnRH antagonist protocols in poor responders. Methods: A total of 172 cycles in subjects with less than 5 oocytes retrieved treated with either GnRH agonist long protocols or antagonist protocols were included. The outcome variables such as numbers of growing follicles and retrieved oocytes, and the fertilization rate were evaluated as the main outcome measures. Results: There was no difference in regard to the numbers of growing follicles and oocytes, and fertilization rate between the two groups. $E_2$ level on Day 7/8, mean gonadotropin dose, and the days of stimulation were shown to be statistically different (p<0.01, respectively). Conclusion: Considering that similar results were observed with less time and gonadotropin dose, GnRH antagonist protocol may be considered as a preferable choice over GnRH agonist protocols in poor responders.
Objective : The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the GnRH antagonist (Cetrotide) minimal stimulation protocol comparing with GnRH agonist combined long step down stimulation protocol in PCOS patients. Materials and Method: From Apr 2001 to May 2002, 22 patients (22 cycles) were performed in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using by GnRH antagonist and GnRH agonist for PCOS patients. GnRH antagonist (Cetrotide) combined minimal stimulation protocol was administered in 10 patients (10 cycles, Study Group) and GnRH agonist long step down stimulation protocol was administered in 12 patients (12 cycles, Control Group). We compared the pregnancy rate/cycle, total FSH (A)/cycle, Retrieved oocyte/cycle, the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, multiple pregnancy rate between the two groups. Student-t test were used to determine statistical significance. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Results: Group of GnRH antagonist (Cetrorelix) minimal stimulation protocol produced fewer oocytes (6.4 versus 16.3 oocytes/cycle) using a lower dose of FSH (22.2 versus 36.1 Ample/cycle) and none developed OHSS and multiple pregnancy. Although the trends were in favour of the GnRH antagonist (Cetrorelix) protocol, the differences did not reach statistical significance. This was probably due to small sample size. Conclusion: The use of GnRH antagonist reduce the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation and multiple pregnancy. We suggest that GnRH antagonist might be alternative controlled ovarian hyperstimulation method, especially in PCOS patients who will be ovarian high response.
Objective: This study was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of GnRH antagonist (Cetrorelix) single dose and multiple dose protocols for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH agonist long protocol. Materials and Method: From September 2001 to March 2002, 48 patients (55 cycles) were performed controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for ART using by either GnRH antagonist and GnRH agonist. Single dose of 3 mg GnRH antagonist was administered in 15 patients (17 cycles, single dose group) at MCD #8 and multiple dose of 0.25 mg of GnRH antagonist was administered in 15 patients (18 cycles, multiple dose group) from MCD #7 to hCG injection day. GnRH agonist was administered in 18 patients (20 cycles, control group) by conventional GnRH agonist long protocol. We compared the implantation rate, number of embryos, and clinical pregnancy rate among three groups. Student-t test and Chi-square were used to determine statistical significance. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Results: There were no significant differences in ampules of used gonadotropins, number of mature oocytes, obtained embryos between single and multiple dose group, but compared with control group, ampules of used gonadotropins, number of mature oocytes, obtained embryos were decreased significantly in both groups. Clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate were not different in three groups. There were no premature LH surge and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in three groups. Multiple pregnancy were occurred 1 case in multiple dose group and 2 case in control group. Conclusions: GnRH antagonist is a safe, effective, and alternative method in the controlled ovarian hyperstimulation compared with GnRH agonist. Clinical outcomes and efficacy of both single and multiple dose protocol are similar between two groups.
Park, Chan Woo;Cha, Sun Wha;Kim, Hae Suk;Kim, Hye Ok;Yang, Kwang Moon;Kim, Jin Young;Song, In Ok;Yoo, Keun Jae;Kang, Inn Soo;Koong, Mi Kyoung
Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
/
v.32
no.3
/
pp.261-268
/
2005
Objective: To compare the clinical results and pregnancy outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) between GnRH antagonist cycles and GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) cycles including flare-up and long protocol in women with advanced age. Materials and Methods: Retrospective clinical study. From January 2001 to September 2003, IVF cycles of female patient 37 years over were included in this study. GnRH-a long protocol (62 cycles, 61 patients) and GnRH antagonist multi-dose flexible protocol (66 cycles, 51 patients) were compared with the control group of GnRH-a flare-up protocol (151 cycles, 138 patients). IVF cycles for non-obstructive azoospermia (NOA), endometriosis III, IV and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) were excluded in this study. Clinical results such as total gonadotropin dose, serum E2 on hCG administration, the number of retrieved oocytes and the pregnancy outcomes - clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), implantation rate (IR) and live birth rate (LBR) per embryo transfer - were compared. Results: There were significant differences in the total dose of gonadotropin (GnRH-a flare-up vs. GnRH-a long vs. GnRH-antagonist; 41.8 vs. 54.7 vs. 24.8), serum E2 on hCG administration (1787.2 vs. 1881.6 vs. 788.0), the numbers of retrieved oocytes (8.1 vs. 11.1 vs. 4.5) and endometrial thickness (9.1 vs. 10.4 vs. 8.0) which were significantly lower in GnRH-antagonist cycles. But pregnancy outcomes shows no significant differenced in CPR (25.0% vs. 35.8% vs. 24.5%), IR (11.7% vs. 12.3% vs. 10.1%) and LBR (15.8% vs. 28.3% vs. 15.1%) Conclusion: In women with advanced age, GnRH-antagonist cycles can result in comparable pregnancy outcomes to GnRH-a cycles including flare-up and long protocol. GnRH-a long protocol show higher CPR, IR and LBR than GnRH antagonist multi-dose flexible protocol and flare-up protocol without significant differences.
Park, Chan Woo;Hwang, Yu Im;Koo, Hwa Seon;Kang, Inn Soo;Yang, Kwang Moon;Song, In Ok
Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
/
v.41
no.4
/
pp.158-164
/
2014
Objective: To assess whether an early GnRH antagonist start leads to better follicular synchronization and an improved clinical pregnancy rate (CPR). Methods: A retrospective cohort study. A total of 218 infertile women who underwent IVF between January 2011 and February 2013. The initial cohort (Cohort I) that underwent IVF between January 2011 and March 2012 included a total of 68 attempted IVF cycles. Thirty-four cycles were treated with the conventional GnRH antagonist protocol, and 34 cycles with an early GnRH antagonist start protocol. The second cohort (Cohort II) that underwent IVF between June 2012 and February 2013 included a total of 150 embryo-transfer (ET) cycles. Forty-three cycles were treated with the conventional GnRH antagonist protocol, 34 cycles with the modified early GnRH antagonist start protocol using highly purified human menopause gonadotropin and an addition of GnRH agonist to the luteal phase support, and 73 cycles with the GnRH agonist long protocol. Results: The analysis of Cohort I showed that the number of mature oocytes retrieved was significantly higher in the early GnRH antagonist start cycles than in the conventional antagonist cycles (11.9 vs. 8.2, p=0.04). The analysis of Cohort II revealed higher but non-significant CPR/ET in the modified early GnRH antagonist start cycles (41.2%) than in the conventional antagonist cycles (30.2%), which was comparable to that of the GnRH agonist long protocol cycles (39.7%). Conclusion: The modified early antagonist start protocol may improve the mature oocyte yield, possibly via enhanced follicular synchronization, while resulting in superior CPR as compared to the conventional antagonist protocol, which needs to be studied further in prospective randomized controlled trials.
Objectives: To compare the efficacy of GnRH antagonist multiple dose protocol (MDP) with that of GnRH agonist long protocol (LP) in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization in patients with high basal FSH (follicle stimulating hormone) level or old age, a retrospective analysis was done. Methods: Two hundred ninety four infertile women (328 cycles) who were older than 41 years of age or had elevated basal FSH level (> 8.5 mIU/mL) were enrolled in this study. The patients had undergone IVF-ET after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using GnRH antagonist multiple dose protocol (n=108, 118 cycles) or GnRH agonist long protocol (n=186, 210 cycles). The main outcome measurements were cycle cancellation rate, consumption of gonadotropins, the number of follicles recruited and total oocytes retrieved. The number of fertilized oocytes and transferred embryos, the clinical pregnancy rates, and the implantation rates were also reviewed. And enrolled patients were divided into three groups according to their age and basal FSH levels; Group A - those who were older than 41 years of age, Group B - those with elevated basal FSH level (> 8.5 mIU/mL) and Group C - those who were older than 41 years of age and with elevated basal FSH level (> 8.5 mIU/mL). Poor responders were classified as patients who had less than 4 retrieved oocytes, or those with $E_2$ level <500 pg/mL on the day of hCG injection or those who required more than 45 ampules of exogenous gonadotropin for stimulation. Results: The cancellation rate was lower in the GnRH antagonist group than in GnRH agonist group, but not statistically significant (6.8% vs. 9.5%, p=NS). The amount of used gonadotropins was significantly lower in GnRH antagonist group than in agonist group ($34.8{\pm}11.3$ ampules vs. $44.1{\pm}13.4$ ampules, p<0.001). The number of follicles > 14 mm in diameter was significantly higher in agonist group than in antagonist group ($6.7{\pm}4.6$ vs. $5.0{\pm}3.4$, p<0.01). But, there were no significant differences in clinical pregnancy rate (24.5% in antagonist group vs. 27.4% in agonist group, p=NS) and implantation rate (11.4% in antagonist group vs. 12.0% in agonist group, p=NS) between two groups. Mean number of retrieved oocytes was significantly higher in GnRH agonist LP group than in GnRH antagonist MDP group ($5.4{\pm}3.5$ vs. $6.6{\pm}5.0$, p<0.0001). But, the number of mature and fertilized oocytes, and the number of good quality (grade I and II) and transferred embryos were not different between two groups. In each group A, B, and C, the rate of poor response did not differ according to stimulation protocols. Conclusions: In conclusion, for infertile women expected poor ovarian response such as who are old age or has elevated basal FSH level, a protocol including a controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using GnRH antagonist appears at least as effective as that using a GnRH agonist, and may offer the advantage of reducing gonadotropin consumption and treatment period. However, much work remains to be done in optimizing the GnRH antagonist protocols and individualizing these to different cycle characteristics.
Objective : The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome the GnRH antagonist (Cetrotide) short protocol in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation comparing with GnRH agonist long protocol. Materials and Method: From July 2000 to November 2001, 26 patients, 28 cycles were performed in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation by GnRH antagonist and GnRH agonist. GnRH antagonist (Cetrotide) was administered in 12 patients (14 cycles, Group 1) and GnRH agonist (Lucrin, Sub Q, Group 2) in 14 patients (14 cycles). Ovulation induction was performed by hMG (Pergonal) in group 1, and by Combo (Metrodine HP + Pergonal) in group 2. We compared the fertilization rate, good quality embryo, and clinical pregnancy rate between the two groups. Student-t test and Chi-square were used to determine statistical significance. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Results: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome did not occurred in which estradiol (E2) level was $3874{\pm}809\;pg/ml$ and the number of retrieved oocytes was $18.4{\pm}2.4$. The number of used gonadotropin ampules was significantly decreased in Group 1 (26.0 vs. 33.1, p<0.04). There were no significant difference in the number of preovulatory oocyte ($10.6{\pm}6.9$ vs. $10.0{\pm}6.1$), fertilization rate ($74.8{\pm}23.4$ vs. $72.2{\pm}21.8$), good quality embryo ($58.7{\pm}23.6$ vs. $38.7{\pm}36.6$), and embryo transfer ($4.3{\pm}1.6$ vs. $4.4{\pm}1.6$). Although the age of the group 1 was older than the group 2 (34.4 vs. 30.8), there was no significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate (50.0% vs. 57.1%). Conclusions: We suggest that GnRH antagonist was a safe, effective, and alternative method in the controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, especially in PCOD patients who will be develop the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.
Kim, Chung-Hoon;Moon, Jei-Won;Kang, Hyuk-Jae;Ahn, Jun-Woo;Kim, Sung-Hoon;Chae, Hee-Dong;Kang, Byung-Moon
Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
/
v.39
no.1
/
pp.22-27
/
2012
Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of GnRH antagonist multiple dose protocol applied during early and late follicular phase (MDP-EL) in comparison with standard GnRH agonist luteal long protocol (LP) in each non-obese and obese polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) women undergoing IVF. Methods: Two hundred eleven infertile women with PCOS were recruited and randomized to undergo either GnRH antagonist MDP-EL (antagonist group) or standard GnRH agonist luteal LP (agonist group). IVF cycle outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results: Total dose and days of recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (rhFSH) administered were significantly fewer in the antagonist group than in the agonist group. Incidence of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome was significantly lower in the antagonist group. However, IVF and pregnancy outcomes were similar in the two groups. When all subjects were divided into non-obese and obese subgroups, in non-obese PCOS subgroup, IVF and pregnancy outcomes were comparable in the antagonist and agonist groups but total dose and days of rhFSH were also significantly fewer in the antagonist group. Similar findings were also observed in obese PCOS subgroup. Conclusion: GnRH antagonist MDP-EL is at least as effective as GnRH agonist LP and may be a more patient-friendly alternative in controlled ovarian stimulation for PCOS patients undergoing IVF, independent of body mass index.
Objective: To prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed early gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol compared to a conventional midfollicular GnRH antagonist protocol and a long GnRH agonist protocol for in vitro fertilization (IVF) in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Methods: Randomized patients in all three groups (early antagonist, n = 14; conventional antagonist, n = 11; long agonist, n = 11) received 21 days of oral contraceptive pill treatment prior to stimulation. The GnRH antagonist was initiated on the 1st day of stimulation in the early antagonist group and on the 6th day in the conventional antagonist group. The GnRH agonist was initiated on the 18th day of the preceding cycle. The primary endpoint was the number of oocytes retrieved, and the secondary endpoints included the rate of moderate-to-severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and the clinical pregnancy rate. Results: The median total number of oocytes was similar among the three groups (early, 16; conventional, 12; agonist, 19; p= 0.111). The early GnRH antagonist protocol showed statistically non-significant associations with a higher clinical pregnancy rate (early, 50.0%; conventional, 11.1%; agonist, 22.2%; p= 0.180) and lower incidence of moderate-to-severe OHSS (early, 7.7%; conventional, 18.2%; agonist, 27.3%; p= 0.463), especially among subjects at high risk for OHSS (early, 12.5%; conventional, 40.0%; agonist, 50.0%; p= 0.324). Conclusion: In PCOS patients undergoing IVF, early administration of a GnRH antagonist may possibly lead to benefits due to a reduced incidence of moderate-to-severe OHSS in high-risk subjects with a better clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer. Further studies with more subjects are required.
Choi, Min Hye;Lee, Sun Hee;Kim, Hye Ok;Cha, Sun Hwa;Kim, Jin Young;Yang, Kwang Moon;Song, In Ok;Koong, Mi Kyoung;Kang, Inn Soo;Park, Chan Woo
Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
/
v.39
no.4
/
pp.166-171
/
2012
Objective: We compared the assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes among infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) treated with IVM, conventional IVF, GnRH agonist, and GnRH antagonist cycles. Methods: The prospective study included a total of 67 cycles in 61 infertile women with PCOS. The women with PCOS were randomized into three IVF protocols: IVM/IVF with FSH and hCG priming with immature oocyte retrieval 38 hours later (group A, 14 cycles), GnRH agonist long protocol (group B, 14 cycles), and GnRH antagonist multi-dose flexible protocol (group C, 39 cycles). IVF outcomes, such as clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), implantation rate (IR), miscarriage rate (MR), and live birth rate (LBR), were compared among the three groups. Results: Age, BMI, and basal FSH and LH levels did not differ among the three groups. The number of retrieved oocytes and 2 pronucleus embryos was significantly lower in group A compared with groups B and C. The CPR, IR, MR, and LBR per embryo transfer showed no differences among the three groups. There was no incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in group A. Conclusion: The IR, MR, and LBR in the IVM cycles were comparable to those of the GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist cycles. The IVM protocol, FSH and hCG priming with oocyte retrieval 38 hours later, is an effective ART option that is comparable with conventional IVF for infertile women with PCOS.
본 웹사이트에 게시된 이메일 주소가 전자우편 수집 프로그램이나
그 밖의 기술적 장치를 이용하여 무단으로 수집되는 것을 거부하며,
이를 위반시 정보통신망법에 의해 형사 처벌됨을 유념하시기 바랍니다.
[게시일 2004년 10월 1일]
이용약관
제 1 장 총칙
제 1 조 (목적)
이 이용약관은 KoreaScience 홈페이지(이하 “당 사이트”)에서 제공하는 인터넷 서비스(이하 '서비스')의 가입조건 및 이용에 관한 제반 사항과 기타 필요한 사항을 구체적으로 규정함을 목적으로 합니다.
제 2 조 (용어의 정의)
① "이용자"라 함은 당 사이트에 접속하여 이 약관에 따라 당 사이트가 제공하는 서비스를 받는 회원 및 비회원을
말합니다.
② "회원"이라 함은 서비스를 이용하기 위하여 당 사이트에 개인정보를 제공하여 아이디(ID)와 비밀번호를 부여
받은 자를 말합니다.
③ "회원 아이디(ID)"라 함은 회원의 식별 및 서비스 이용을 위하여 자신이 선정한 문자 및 숫자의 조합을
말합니다.
④ "비밀번호(패스워드)"라 함은 회원이 자신의 비밀보호를 위하여 선정한 문자 및 숫자의 조합을 말합니다.
제 3 조 (이용약관의 효력 및 변경)
① 이 약관은 당 사이트에 게시하거나 기타의 방법으로 회원에게 공지함으로써 효력이 발생합니다.
② 당 사이트는 이 약관을 개정할 경우에 적용일자 및 개정사유를 명시하여 현행 약관과 함께 당 사이트의
초기화면에 그 적용일자 7일 이전부터 적용일자 전일까지 공지합니다. 다만, 회원에게 불리하게 약관내용을
변경하는 경우에는 최소한 30일 이상의 사전 유예기간을 두고 공지합니다. 이 경우 당 사이트는 개정 전
내용과 개정 후 내용을 명확하게 비교하여 이용자가 알기 쉽도록 표시합니다.
제 4 조(약관 외 준칙)
① 이 약관은 당 사이트가 제공하는 서비스에 관한 이용안내와 함께 적용됩니다.
② 이 약관에 명시되지 아니한 사항은 관계법령의 규정이 적용됩니다.
제 2 장 이용계약의 체결
제 5 조 (이용계약의 성립 등)
① 이용계약은 이용고객이 당 사이트가 정한 약관에 「동의합니다」를 선택하고, 당 사이트가 정한
온라인신청양식을 작성하여 서비스 이용을 신청한 후, 당 사이트가 이를 승낙함으로써 성립합니다.
② 제1항의 승낙은 당 사이트가 제공하는 과학기술정보검색, 맞춤정보, 서지정보 등 다른 서비스의 이용승낙을
포함합니다.
제 6 조 (회원가입)
서비스를 이용하고자 하는 고객은 당 사이트에서 정한 회원가입양식에 개인정보를 기재하여 가입을 하여야 합니다.
제 7 조 (개인정보의 보호 및 사용)
당 사이트는 관계법령이 정하는 바에 따라 회원 등록정보를 포함한 회원의 개인정보를 보호하기 위해 노력합니다. 회원 개인정보의 보호 및 사용에 대해서는 관련법령 및 당 사이트의 개인정보 보호정책이 적용됩니다.
제 8 조 (이용 신청의 승낙과 제한)
① 당 사이트는 제6조의 규정에 의한 이용신청고객에 대하여 서비스 이용을 승낙합니다.
② 당 사이트는 아래사항에 해당하는 경우에 대해서 승낙하지 아니 합니다.
- 이용계약 신청서의 내용을 허위로 기재한 경우
- 기타 규정한 제반사항을 위반하며 신청하는 경우
제 9 조 (회원 ID 부여 및 변경 등)
① 당 사이트는 이용고객에 대하여 약관에 정하는 바에 따라 자신이 선정한 회원 ID를 부여합니다.
② 회원 ID는 원칙적으로 변경이 불가하며 부득이한 사유로 인하여 변경 하고자 하는 경우에는 해당 ID를
해지하고 재가입해야 합니다.
③ 기타 회원 개인정보 관리 및 변경 등에 관한 사항은 서비스별 안내에 정하는 바에 의합니다.
제 3 장 계약 당사자의 의무
제 10 조 (KISTI의 의무)
① 당 사이트는 이용고객이 희망한 서비스 제공 개시일에 특별한 사정이 없는 한 서비스를 이용할 수 있도록
하여야 합니다.
② 당 사이트는 개인정보 보호를 위해 보안시스템을 구축하며 개인정보 보호정책을 공시하고 준수합니다.
③ 당 사이트는 회원으로부터 제기되는 의견이나 불만이 정당하다고 객관적으로 인정될 경우에는 적절한 절차를
거쳐 즉시 처리하여야 합니다. 다만, 즉시 처리가 곤란한 경우는 회원에게 그 사유와 처리일정을 통보하여야
합니다.
제 11 조 (회원의 의무)
① 이용자는 회원가입 신청 또는 회원정보 변경 시 실명으로 모든 사항을 사실에 근거하여 작성하여야 하며,
허위 또는 타인의 정보를 등록할 경우 일체의 권리를 주장할 수 없습니다.
② 당 사이트가 관계법령 및 개인정보 보호정책에 의거하여 그 책임을 지는 경우를 제외하고 회원에게 부여된
ID의 비밀번호 관리소홀, 부정사용에 의하여 발생하는 모든 결과에 대한 책임은 회원에게 있습니다.
③ 회원은 당 사이트 및 제 3자의 지적 재산권을 침해해서는 안 됩니다.
제 4 장 서비스의 이용
제 12 조 (서비스 이용 시간)
① 서비스 이용은 당 사이트의 업무상 또는 기술상 특별한 지장이 없는 한 연중무휴, 1일 24시간 운영을
원칙으로 합니다. 단, 당 사이트는 시스템 정기점검, 증설 및 교체를 위해 당 사이트가 정한 날이나 시간에
서비스를 일시 중단할 수 있으며, 예정되어 있는 작업으로 인한 서비스 일시중단은 당 사이트 홈페이지를
통해 사전에 공지합니다.
② 당 사이트는 서비스를 특정범위로 분할하여 각 범위별로 이용가능시간을 별도로 지정할 수 있습니다. 다만
이 경우 그 내용을 공지합니다.
제 13 조 (홈페이지 저작권)
① NDSL에서 제공하는 모든 저작물의 저작권은 원저작자에게 있으며, KISTI는 복제/배포/전송권을 확보하고
있습니다.
② NDSL에서 제공하는 콘텐츠를 상업적 및 기타 영리목적으로 복제/배포/전송할 경우 사전에 KISTI의 허락을
받아야 합니다.
③ NDSL에서 제공하는 콘텐츠를 보도, 비평, 교육, 연구 등을 위하여 정당한 범위 안에서 공정한 관행에
합치되게 인용할 수 있습니다.
④ NDSL에서 제공하는 콘텐츠를 무단 복제, 전송, 배포 기타 저작권법에 위반되는 방법으로 이용할 경우
저작권법 제136조에 따라 5년 이하의 징역 또는 5천만 원 이하의 벌금에 처해질 수 있습니다.
제 14 조 (유료서비스)
① 당 사이트 및 협력기관이 정한 유료서비스(원문복사 등)는 별도로 정해진 바에 따르며, 변경사항은 시행 전에
당 사이트 홈페이지를 통하여 회원에게 공지합니다.
② 유료서비스를 이용하려는 회원은 정해진 요금체계에 따라 요금을 납부해야 합니다.
제 5 장 계약 해지 및 이용 제한
제 15 조 (계약 해지)
회원이 이용계약을 해지하고자 하는 때에는 [가입해지] 메뉴를 이용해 직접 해지해야 합니다.
제 16 조 (서비스 이용제한)
① 당 사이트는 회원이 서비스 이용내용에 있어서 본 약관 제 11조 내용을 위반하거나, 다음 각 호에 해당하는
경우 서비스 이용을 제한할 수 있습니다.
- 2년 이상 서비스를 이용한 적이 없는 경우
- 기타 정상적인 서비스 운영에 방해가 될 경우
② 상기 이용제한 규정에 따라 서비스를 이용하는 회원에게 서비스 이용에 대하여 별도 공지 없이 서비스 이용의
일시정지, 이용계약 해지 할 수 있습니다.
제 17 조 (전자우편주소 수집 금지)
회원은 전자우편주소 추출기 등을 이용하여 전자우편주소를 수집 또는 제3자에게 제공할 수 없습니다.
제 6 장 손해배상 및 기타사항
제 18 조 (손해배상)
당 사이트는 무료로 제공되는 서비스와 관련하여 회원에게 어떠한 손해가 발생하더라도 당 사이트가 고의 또는 과실로 인한 손해발생을 제외하고는 이에 대하여 책임을 부담하지 아니합니다.
제 19 조 (관할 법원)
서비스 이용으로 발생한 분쟁에 대해 소송이 제기되는 경우 민사 소송법상의 관할 법원에 제기합니다.
[부 칙]
1. (시행일) 이 약관은 2016년 9월 5일부터 적용되며, 종전 약관은 본 약관으로 대체되며, 개정된 약관의 적용일 이전 가입자도 개정된 약관의 적용을 받습니다.