Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28971280›Full record

ReviewJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2018

Reproductive ovarian testing and the alphabet soup of diagnoses: DOR, POI, POF, POR, and FOR.

Lisa M Pastore, Mindy S Christianson, James Stelling, William G Kearns, James H Segars

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 132 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
132citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

132 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Does theFMR1 gene affect IVF success?Reproductive biomedicine online · 2019
    Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Multimodal ultrasound assessment of ovarian reserve.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Observational
  19. Review
  20. Article

72 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lisa M PastoreDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-8091, USA. pastorestudies@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9908-1928
Mindy S ChristiansonDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
James StellingDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Stony Brook Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-8091, USA.
William G KearnsDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
James H SegarsDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are large variations in the number of oocytes within each woman, and biologically, the total quantity is at its maximum before the woman is born. Scientific knowledge is limited about factors controlling the oocyte pool and how to measure it. Within fertility clinics, there is no uniform agreement on the diagnostic criteria for each common measure of ovarian reserve in women, and thus, studies often conflict. While declining oocyte quantity/quality is a normal physiologic occurrence as women age, some women experience diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) much earlier than usual and become prematurely infertile. Key clinical features of DOR are the presence of regular menstrual periods and abnormal-but-not-postmenopausal ovarian reserve test results. A common clinical challenge is counseling patients with conflicting ovarian reserve test results. The clinical diagnosis of DOR and the interpretation of ovarian reserve testing are complicated by changing lab testing options and processing for anti-mullerian hormone since 2010. Further, complicating the diagnostic and research scenario is the existence of other distinct yet related clinical terms, specifically premature ovarian failure, primary ovarian insufficiency, poor ovarian response, and functional ovarian reserve. The similarities and differences between the definitions of DOR with each of these four terms are reviewed. We recommend greater medical community involvement in terminology decisions, and the addition of DOR-specific medical subject-heading search terms.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Techniques, EndocrineDiagnostic Techniques, Obstetrical and GynecologicalFemaleHumansInfertility, FemaleOvarian DiseasesOvarian ReservePrimary Ovarian InsufficiencyReproductionTerminology as TopicAnti-mullerian hormoneAntral follicle countDiminished ovarian reserveFemale infertilityFollicle-stimulating hormoneOvarian reserve testingPoor ovarian responsePremature ovarian failurePrimary ovarian insufficiency

Identifiers

PMID28971280
PMCPMC5758472

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.