| Title |
Diminished ovarian reserve, premature ovarian failure, poor ovarian responder—a plea for universal definitions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10815-015-0595-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
J. Cohen, N. Chabbert-Buffet, E. Darai |
| Abstract |
Diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) is characterized by poor fertility outcomes, and it represents a major challenge in reproductive medicine. Although consensus exists on the concept of DOR, its definition remains blurry. DOR has to be distinguished from premature ovarian failure (POF) and poor ovarian responders (POR), who are clearly defined. We performed a PubMed search with the terms "diminished ovarian reserve" and "in vitro fertilization (IVF)" to assess the homogeneity of the definition of DOR. Out of 121 articles, 14 gave a definition for DOR. Only one definition was used by two different teams (basal follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) value >10 IU/l) and eight teams used 11 different definitions. Among those, four definitions did not include antral follicular count (AFC) and seven studies did. Two definitions included the results from a previous cycle. The heterogeneity in the definition of DOR used in these studies contributes to confusing results. Hence, there is a need for a clear definition of DOR. It appears that AFC and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) serum levels are the most relevant criteria. One option could be the use of the following definition: (i) woman with any of the risk factors for POR and/or (ii) an abnormal ovarian reserve test (i.e., antral follicular count (AFC) <5-7 follicles or AMH <0.5-1.1 ng/ml). This hypothesis requires validation. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 106 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 19% |
| Unknown | 35 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 36% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 9% |
| Unknown | 39 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 29 September 2022.
All research outputs
#3,422,316
of 24,119,703 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
#160
of 1,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,299
of 283,635 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
#4
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,119,703 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 283,635 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.