ArticleFacts, views & vision in ObGyn2009
Testing for Ovarian Reserve in Assisted Reproduction programs: the current point of view.
Article in Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Glycosylation Variants Distinctly Modulate Pre-antral Follicle Growth and Survival.Endocrinology · 2022Article
- Impact of IVF on the Timing and Symptoms of Menopause.International journal of women's health · 2021Article
- Elevated Levels of Monocyte Chemotactic Protein-1 in the Follicular Fluid Reveals Different Populations among Women with Severe Endometriosis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Predictive Factors for Live Birth in Autologous in Vitro Fertilization Cycles in Women Aged 40 Years and Older.Zdravstveno varstvo · 2019Article
- Poor responders in in vitro fertilization (IVF) therapy: the challenge continues.Facts, views & vision in ObGyn · 2011Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Age related fertility decline varies considerably among women. Therefore, chronological female age, though informative on pregnancy prospects in assisted reproduction, will often not correctly express a woman's reproductive potential. The value of quantitative ovarian reserve tests prior to IVF/ICSI treatment is still subject of debate. From a series of systematic reviews it has become clear that the added value of these tests upon knowing female age has not been clearly established. Still, several tests, like the AFC and AMH are considered adequate in predicting the response to ovarian stimulation. This claim seems to be truer for poor response prediction, compared to hyper response. Prediction of the outcome pregnancy has repeatedly shown to be cumbersome. As management options for predicted poor or hyper responders-- are not fully investigated to date, routine ovarian reserve testing is not to be recommended. A first cycle poor response to adequate stimulation in cases with otherwise no signs of advanced ovarian ageing (based on female-- age and ovarian reserve tests) may offer a tool to identify cases with sufficient prospects for continuation of ART treatment--.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25478073PMC4251274W2169262778What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.