SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Zeynep Kamil medical journal (Online) / 2022 / Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 3

What did change in poor ovarian responders according to Bologna criteria over the 5 years? A tertiary IVF center experience

Halenur BOZDAĞ
Belgin DEVRANOĞLU
Esra AKDENİZ
Nazan YURTÇU
Nurullah PEKER
Pages
132–139
Publication Date
2022-11-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

A linear increase in the prefer of the antagonist protocol was found (χ2(1)=6.61, p=0.010), whereas there was a linear decrease in the minimal stimulation protocol with Clomiphene Citrate (χ2(1)=11.028, p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the changes in the prevalence, management strategies, and cycle outcomes of the cycle with the poor ovarian re- sponse (POR).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Data were ob- tained from medical records of infertile couples who underwent the intracytoplasmic sperm injection and embryo transfer program from January 2014 to December 2018.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:A linear increase in the prefer of the antagonist protocol was found (χ2(1)=6.61, p=0.010), whereas there was a linear decrease in the minimal stimulation protocol with Clomiphene Citrate (χ2(1)=11.028, p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the changes in the prevalence, management strategies, and cycle outcomes of the cycle with the poor ovarian re- sponse (POR). Material and Methods: This study was retrospectively designed. Poor responder in- fertile women who fulfilled Bologna criteria were included in the study. Data were ob- tained from medical records of infertile couples who underwent the intracytoplasmic sperm injection and embryo transfer program from January 2014 to December 2018. Results: Totally 776 cycles with POR were evaluated. The changing trend in the prev- alence of the cycle with POR was estimated by rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no linear trend in the proportion of poor cycles across years (χ2(1)=9.28, p=0.002). A linear increasing trend in the proportion of poor cycles in the 5 years was found. A linear increase in the prefer of the antagonist protocol was found (χ2(1)=6.61, p=0.010), whereas there was a linear decrease in the minimal stimulation protocol with Clomiphene Citrate (χ2(1)=11.028, p

🔖

Cite This Article

BOZDAĞ, H., DEVRANOĞLU, B., AKDENİZ, E., YURTÇU, N., PEKER, N. (2022). What did change in poor ovarian responders according to Bologna criteria over the 5 years? A tertiary IVF center experience. Zeynep Kamil medical journal (Online), Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 3, 132–139. https://ajindex.com/articles/655737

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Garcia JE, Jones GS, Acosta AA, Wright G Jr. Human menopausal go- nadotropin/human chorionic gonadotropin follicular maturation for oo- cyte aspiration: Phase II, 1981. Fertil Steril 1983;39:174–9
  2. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovari- an stimulation for in vitro fertilization: The Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1616–24
  3. Boza A, Oguz SY, Misirlioglu S, Yakin K, Urman B. Utilization of the Bologna criteria: A promise unfulfilled? A review of published and unpub- lished/ongoing trials. Fertil Steril 2018;109:104–9.e2
  4. Poseidon Group (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing Individu- alizeD Oocyte Number), Alviggi C, Andersen CY, Buehler K, Conforti A, De Placido G, et al. A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: From a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil Steril 2016;105:1452–3
  5. Keay SD, Liversedge NH, Mathur RS, Jenkins JM. Assisted conception following poor ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation. Br J Ob- stet Gynaecol 1997;104:521–7
  6. Venetis CA, Kolibianakis EM, Tarlatzi TB, Tarlatzis BC. Evi- dence-based management of poor ovarian response. Ann N Y Acad S 2010;1205:199–206
  7. Patrizio P, Vaiarelli A, Levi Setti PE, Tobler KJ, Shoham G, Leong M, et al. How to define, diagnose and treat poor responders? Responses from a worldwide survey of IVF clinics. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;30:581– 92
  8. Oudendijk JF, Yarde F, Eijkemans MJ, Broekmans FJ, Broer SL. The poor responder in IVF: Is the prognosis always poor?: A systematic re- view. Hum Reprod Update 2012;18:1–11
  9. Papathanasiou A, Searle BJ, King NM, Bhattacharya S. Trends in ‘poor responder’ research: Lessons learned from RCTs in assisted concep- tion. Hum Reprod Update 2016;22:306–19
  10. Butts SF, Ratcliffe S, Dokras A, Seifer DB. Diagnosis and treatment of diminished ovarian reserve in assisted reproductive technology cycles of women up to age 40 years: The role of insurance mandates. Fertil Steril 2013;99:382–8
  11. Devine K, Mumford SL, Wu M, DeCherney AH, Hill MJ, Propst A. Dimin- ished ovarian reserve in the United States assisted reproductive tech- nology population: Diagnostic trends among 181,536 cycles from the society for assisted reproductive technology clinic outcomes reporting system. Fertil Steril 2015;104:612–9.e3
  12. Hu L, Bu Z, Guo Y, Su Y, Zhai J, Sun Y. Comparison of different ovarian hype