Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30174650›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in endocrinology2018

Defining Low Prognosis Patients Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Technology: POSEIDON Criteria-The Why.

Sandro C Esteves, Matheus Roque, Giuliano M Bedoschi, Alessandro Conforti, Peter Humaidan, Carlo Alviggi

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

79 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Ten years of POSEIDON classification: a SOAR analysis.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 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

6 authors.

Sandro C EstevesANDROFERT, Andrology and Human Reproduction Clinic, Campinas, Brazil.
Matheus RoqueORIGEN, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Giuliano M BedoschiDivision of Reproductive Medicine, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
Alessandro ConfortiDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Science and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Peter HumaidanFaculty of Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Carlo AlviggiDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Science and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Women with impaired ovarian reserve or poor ovarian response (POR) to exogenous gonadotropin stimulation present a challenge for reproductive specialists. The primary reasons relate to the still limited knowledge about the POR pathophysiology and the lack of practical solutions for the management of these conditions. Indeed, clinical trials using the current standards to define POR failed to show evidence in favor of a particular treatment modality. Furthermore, critical factors for reproductive success, such as the age-dependent embryo aneuploidy rates and the intrinsic ovarian resistance to gonadotropin stimulation, are not taken into consideration by the current POR criteria. As a result, the accepted definitions for POR have been criticized for their inadequacy concerning the proper patient characterization and for not providing clinicians a guide for therapeutic management. A novel system to classify infertility patients with "expected" or "unexpected" inappropriate ovarian response to exogenous gonadotropins-the POSEIDON criteria-was developed to provide a more nuanced picture of POR and to guide physicians in the management of such patients. The new standards are provoking as they challenge the current terminology of POR in favor of the newly defined concept of "low prognosis." This article provides readers a critical appraisal of the existing criteria that standardize the definition of POR and explains the primary reasons for the development of the POSEIDON criteria.

Indexed as

assisted reproductive technologyhypo-responderlow responderovarian stimulationpoor ovarian reservepoor ovarian responsePOSEIDON criteria

Identifiers

PMID30174650
PMCPMC6107695

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.