↓ Skip to main content

Comparative prospective study of 2 ovarian stimulation protocols in poor responders: effect on implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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
Comparative prospective study of 2 ovarian stimulation protocols in poor responders: effect on implantation rate and ongoing pregnancy
Published in
Reproductive Health, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12978-015-0039-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philippe Merviel, Rosalie Cabry-Goubet, Emmanuelle Lourdel, Aviva Devaux, Naima Belhadri-Mansouri, Henri Copin, Moncef Benkhalifa

Abstract

In patients treated with IVF, the incidence of poor ovarian response (POR) after ovarian stimulation varies from 9 to 25 %. However, at present, there are no clear guidelines for treating these poor responders. This study was designed to compare two different ovarian stimulation protocols and addresses future perspectives in the management of these unfortunate patients. Four hundred and forty poor responders were studied during their second IVF cycle. They had all failed to become pregnant during their first IVF cycle where the long GnRH-agonist stimulation protocol (P1) was used. Patients were prospectively randomly assigned to 2 protocol groups (P2 or P3, 220 patients in each arm) at the start of ovarian stimulation according to the order of entry into the study including one patient per each stimulation protocols: The P2 group was treated with a contraceptive pill + flare-up GnRH-agonist protocol and the P3 group with the GnRH-antagonist protocol. The ovarian stimulation characteristics as well as the clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates were compared. Although the numbers of embryos obtained and transferred were significantly higher with the P2 protocol, the implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates per transfer were the same in the two studied groups (8.9 % versus 14.6 % and 8.4 % versus 14.2 % for the P2 and P3 protocols, respectively). Good prognostic factors for ongoing pregnancy with both protocols were: a maternal age <36, no tobacco consumption, a total dose of gonadotropins injection <5000 IU and an endometrial thickness >10 mm. In poorly responding patients treated with IVF, the implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates per transfer were not significantly different between the two protocols studied: contraceptive pill + flare-up GnRH-agonist protocol and the GnRH-antagonist protocol. It is suggested that current strategies for the management of poor responders be reconsidered in the light of the potential contribution of age and the effect of life style changes on fertility potential. A customised policy of ovarian stimulation in these patients including mild stimulation protocols, sequential IVF cycles, oocytes-embryos freeze all protocols and blastocyst transfers after screening may improve the clinical outcome.

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.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Russia 1 1%
Nigeria 1 1%
Unknown 66 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 18%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 17 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 21 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 07 July 2015.
All research outputs
#14,818,336
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#1,080
of 1,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,717
of 267,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#32
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,413 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 267,048 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.