ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2021
Cumulative delivery rate per aspiration IVF/ICSI cycle in POSEIDON patients: a real-world evidence study of 9073 patients.
Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.
- Frozen versus fresh embryo transfer in women with low prognosis for in vitro fertilisation treatment: pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Trial
- The impact of resveratrol on the outcome of the in vitro fertilization: an exploratory randomized placebo-controlled trial.Journal of ovarian research · 2024Trial
- Clinical outcomes of the short agonist stop protocol versus the long GnRH agonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF/ICSI: a retrospective analysis.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Article
- Glucagon receptor blockade protects spermatogenesis by enhancing PFKFB3-mediated lactate production in Sertoli cells.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- The prognostic value of the Oocyte Maturation Index (OMI) on pregnancy outcomes in POSEIDON group 3 and 4 patients: a retrospective cohort study.Journal of ovarian research · 2026Article
- Cumulative pregnancy and cumulative live birth rates and perinatal and obstetric outcomes in POSEIDON patients: insights from 19,371 IVF/ICSI cycles.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Effect of dual trigger on pregnancy outcomes in women with diminished ovarian reserve: A single-blind randomized clinical trial.International journal of reproductive biomedicine · 2026Article
- Ten years of POSEIDON classification: a SOAR analysis.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2026Review
- LSD1 maintains oocyte quality by epigenetically repressing CAMK2β to control granulosa cell-oocyte communication.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Does ovarian stimulation accelerate the progression of BI-RADS categories? a propensity score matching-based retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- PGT-A in POSEIDON Patients - perspectives and limitations.JBRA assisted reproduction · 2025Article
- The relevance of female overweight in infertility treatment: a position statement of the Italian Society of Fertility and Sterility and Reproductive Medicine (SIFES-MR).Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025Article
- The Effectiveness of the GnRH Agonist/Antagonist Protocols for Different Poseidon Subgroups of Poor Ovarian Responders.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Does the Timing of Antagonist Treatment Influence Cycle Outcomes in Unexpected Low Responders of POSEIDON Class 1 and 2?Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Ovarian Activation Surgical Techniques for Women with Premature Ovarian Insufficiency or Poor Ovarian Response: A Systematic Review.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2025Article
- The role of recombinant LH in ovarian stimulation: what's new?Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2025Review
- In Vitro Fertilization Outcomes in Donor Oocyte Cycles Compared to the Autologous Cycles in the Poseidon 4 Group of Poor Ovarian Responders.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- The influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the development of gonadotrophins and ovarian stimulation protocols in assisted reproductive technologies.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
- Effects of maternal poor ovarian response on the reproductive endocrine profiles of the next generation: a prospective cohort study in China.Human reproduction open · 2025Article
- A multicentric real-world observational study to describe the use and efficacy of follitropin delta for IVF/ICSI procedures in patients at risk of hypo-response.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionWhat is the cumulative delivery rate (CDR) per aspiration IVF/ICSI cycle in low-prognosis patients as defined by the Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) criteria? SUMMARY ANSWER: The CDR of POSEIDON patients was on average ∼50% lower than in normal responders and varied across POSEIDON groups; differences were primarily determined by female age, number of embryos obtained, number of embryo transfer (ET) cycles per patient, number of oocytes retrieved, duration of infertility, and BMI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The POSEIDON criteria aim to underline differences related to a poor or suboptimal treatment outcome in terms of oocyte quality and quantity among patients undergoing IVF/ICSI, and thus, create more homogenous groups for the clinical management of infertility and research. POSEIDON patients are presumed to be at a higher risk of failing to achieve a live birth after IVF/ICSI treatment than normal responders with an adequate ovarian reserve. The CDR per initiated/aspiration cycle after the transfer of all fresh and frozen-thawed/warmed embryos has been suggested to be the critical endpoint that sets these groups apart. However, no multicenter study has yet substantiated the validity of the POSEIDON classification in identifying relevant subpopulations of patients with low-prognosis in IVF/ICSI treatment using real-world data. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Multicenter population-based retrospective cohort study involving 9073 patients treated in three fertility clinics in Brazil, Turkey and Vietnam between 2015 and 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,
methodsParticipants were women with infertility between 22 and 42 years old in their first IVF/ICSI cycle of standard ovarian stimulation whose fresh and/or frozen embryos were transferred until delivery of a live born or until all embryos were used. Patients were retrospectively classified according to the POSEIDON criteria into four groups based on female age, antral follicle count (AFC), and the number of oocytes retrieved or into a control group of normal responders (non-POSEIDON). POSEIDON patients encompassed younger (<35 years) and older (35 years or above) women with an AFC ≥5 and an unexpected poor (<4 retrieved oocytes) or suboptimal (4-9 retrieved oocytes) response to stimulation, and respective younger and older counterparts with an impaired ovarian reserve (i.e. expected poor responders; AFC <5). Non-POSEIDON patients were those with AFC ≥5 and >9 oocytes retrieved. CDR was computed per one aspirated cycle. Logistic regression analysis was carried out to examine the association between patient classification and CDR. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: The CDR was lower in the POSEIDON patients than in the non-POSEIDON patients (33.7% vs 50.6%; P < 0.001) and differed across POSEIDON groups (younger unexpected poor responder [Group 1a; n = 212]: 27.8%, younger unexpected suboptimal responder [Group 1b; n = 1785]: 47.8%, older unexpected poor responder [Group 2a; n = 293]: 14.0%, older unexpected suboptimal responder [Group 2b; n = 1275]: 30.5%, younger expected poor responder [Group 3; n = 245]: 29.4%, and older expected poor responder [Group 4; n = 623]: 12.5%. Among unexpected suboptimal/poor responders (POSEIDON Groups 1 and 2), the CDR was twice as high in suboptimal responders (4-9 oocytes retrieved) as in poor responders (<4 oocytes) (P = 0.0004). Logistic regression analysis revealed that the POSEIDON grouping, number of embryos obtained, number of ET cycles per patient, number of oocytes collected, female age, duration of infertility and BMI were relevant predictors for CDR (P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our study relied on the antral follicle count as the biomarker used for patient classification. Ovarian stimulation protocols varied across study centers, potentially affecting patient classification. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsPOSEIDON patients exhibit lower CDR per aspirated IVF/ICSI cycle than normal responders; the differences are mainly determined by female age and number of oocytes retrieved, thereby reflecting the importance of oocyte quality and quantity. Our data substantiate the validity of the POSEIDON criteria in identifying relevant subpopulations of patients with low-prognosis in IVF/ICSI treatment. Efforts in terms of early diagnosis, prevention, and identification of specific interventions that might benefit POSEIDON patients are warranted. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Unrestricted investigator-sponsored study grant (MS200059_0013) from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. The funder had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or manuscript preparation. S.C.E. declares receipt of unrestricted research grants from Merck and lecture fees from Merck and Med.E.A. H.Y. declares receipt of payment for lectures from Merck and Ferring. L.N.V. receives speaker fees and conferences from Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD) and Ferring and research grants from MSD and Ferring. J.F.C. declares receipt of statistical services fees from ANDROFERT Clinic. T.M.H. received speaker fees and conferences from Merck, MSD and Ferring. P.H. declares receipt of unrestricted research grants from Merck, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and IBSA and lecture fees from Merck, Gedeon Richter and Med.E.A. C.A. declares receipt of unrestricted research grants from Merck and lecture fees from Merck. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.