↓ Skip to main content

The Bologna criteria for poor ovarian response: a contemporary critical appraisal

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Ovarian Research, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
84 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Bologna criteria for poor ovarian response: a contemporary critical appraisal
Published in
Journal of Ovarian Research, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13048-015-0204-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Johnny S. Younis, Moshe Ben-Ami, Izhar Ben-Shlomo

Abstract

Postponement of child bearing and maternal age at first pregnancy are on the rise, contributing considerably to an increase in age-related infertility and the demand for assisted reproductive technologies (ART) treatment. This brings to the infertility clinics many women with low ovarian reserve and poor ovarian response (POR) to conventional stimulation. The Bologna criteria were released to standardize the definition of POR and pave the way for the formulation of evidence-based, efficient modalities of treatment for women undergoing IVF-ET. More than four years have passed since the introduction of these criteria and the debate is still ongoing whether a revision is due. Women with POR comprise several sub-groups with diverse baseline distinctiveness, a major issue that has fueled the discussion. Although antral follicle count (AFC) and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), are considered good predictors of ovarian reserve, their threshold values are still not universally standardized. Different definitions for sonographic AFC and diverse assays for AMH are held responsible for this delay in standardization. Adding established risk factors to the criteria will lead to more reliable and reproducible definition of a POR, especially in young women. The original criteria did not address the issue of oocyte quality, and the addition of risk factors may yield specific associations with quality vs. quantity. Patient's age is the best available criterion, although limited, to predict live-birth and presumably oocyte quality. High scale studies to validate these criteria are still missing while recent evidence raises concern regarding over diagnosis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 112 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 19%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 9%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 9 8%
Other 23 20%
Unknown 31 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 42%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Engineering 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 38 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 August 2016.
All research outputs
#20,336,685
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Ovarian Research
#432
of 591 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#323,794
of 386,589 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Ovarian Research
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 591 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,589 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.