ArticleReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2024
Patients with low prognosis in ART: a Delphi consensus to identify potential clinical implications and measure the impact of POSEIDON criteria.
Article in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictive Performance of Oocyte Count for Clinical Pregnancy in GnRH Antagonist IVF Cycles: A Multivariable Analysis of 1171 Fresh Embryo Transfers over a 14-Year Period.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 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
- Ten years of POSEIDON classification: a SOAR analysis.Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2026Review
- Determination of the optimal follicle size at the time of trigger in patients with diminished ovarian reserve undergoing ICSI cycle.Journal of ovarian research · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently, there is no consensus on the optimal management of women with low prognosis in ART. In this Delphi consensus, a panel of international experts provided real-world clinical perspectives on a series of literature-supported consensus statements regarding the overall relevance of the POSEIDON criteria for women with low prognosis in ART.
methodsUsing a Delphi-consensus framework, twelve experts plus two Scientific Coordinators discussed and amended statements and supporting references proposed by the Scientific Coordinators (Round 1). Statements were distributed via an online survey to an extended panel of 53 experts, of whom 36 who voted anonymously on their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement using a six-point Likert-type scale (1 = Absolutely agree; 2 = More than agree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Disagree; 5 = More than disagree; 6 = Absolutely disagree) (Round 2). Consensus was reached if > 66% of participants agreed or disagreed.
resultsThe extended panel voted on seventeen statements and subcategorized them according to relevance. All but one statement reached consensus during the first round; the remaining statement reached consensus after rewording. Statements were categorized according to impact, low-prognosis validation, outcomes and patient management. The POSEIDON criteria are timely and clinically sound. The preferred success measure is cumulative live birth and key management strategies include the use of recombinant FSH preparations, supplementation with r-hLH, dose increases and oocyte/embryo accumulation through vitrification. Tools such as the ART Calculator and Follicle-to-Oocyte Index may be considered. Validation data from large, prospective studies in each POSEIDON group are now needed to corroborate existing retrospective data.
conclusionsThis Delphi consensus provides an overview of expert opinion on the clinical implications of the POSEIDON criteria for women with low prognosis to ovarian stimulation.
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.