Observational studyScientific reports2022
Comparison of ART outcome in patients with poor ovarian response according to POSEIDON criteria.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Fertility preservation in women with diminished ovarian reserve: evaluating the AMH criteria.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Fibroblast Activation Protein (FAP) as a Serum Biomarker for Fibrotic Ovarian Aging: A Clinical Validation Study Based on Translational Transcriptomic Targets.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
- Patient-specific predictors of successful frozen embryo transfer using the freeze-all protocol: a retrospective observational study.Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 2025Article
- Development and validation of a nomogram for failure to collect oocytes in POSEIDON Groups 3 and 4 undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Impact of Letrozole in Combination with the GnRH Antagonist Ovarian Stimulation Protocol in Patients Expected to Have a Poor Ovarian Response (POSEIDON Groups 3 and 4).Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- The Effect of Traditional Chinese Medicine Treatment on the Cumulative Live Birth Rate of Patients with Poor Ovarian Response to the Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing Individualized Oocyte Number Criteria.International journal of women's health · 2024Article
- Comparison between the modified long gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist protocol and the non-downregulation protocol in POSEIDON groups: a propensity score matching retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the patient-oriented strategies encompassing individualized oocyte number (POSEIDON) criteria can reflect the prognosis of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) by comparing the results of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) between four POSEIDON and normal responder (NR) groups. In total, 225 patients were included in this retrospective observational study. The patients underwent various COS protocols and in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection, followed by fresh or frozen embryo transfer. Based on their clinical and demographic data, patients were divided into four groups according to the POSEIDON classification, and their ART outcomes were evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.0.5, and a p-value of < 0.05 was considered significant. The NR group had the highest number of total oocytes retrieved and total embryos obtained, as well as the best ART outcome in terms of clinical pregnancy rate ([CPR], 47.6%). The POSEIDON groups 1 and 2 had better COS and ART outcomes than groups 3 and 4 (CPR, 22.6%, 22.1%, 16.7%, and 4.8% in groups 1-4, respectively); the patients in group 3 were younger than those in group 2 by definition, but their CPR was lower than that of patients in group 2. When comparing young and old women with low anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels, the younger group (POSEIDON group 2) had better COS and ART outcomes than their older counterparts, especially POSEIDON group 4. A binary logistic regression adjusted for body mass index (BMI) comparing the ART outcomes of patients that did not get pregnant in the POSEIDON groups compared to the NR group showed odds ratios (ORs) (95% confidence interval) of 2.938 (1.496-5.768), 3.376 (1.848-6.167), 6.801 (2.740-16.881), and 20.497 (8.284-50.713) for groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Ovarian reserve still seems to outweigh patients' age when predicting the ART outcomes of low-responder infertile women, as suggested by the results of POSEIDON groups 2 and 3. However, when there are no differences in ovarian reserve, as in POSEIDON groups 2 and 4, younger women with low AMH have a higher probability of pregnancy than their AMH-matched older counterparts.
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.