↓ Skip to main content

How to define, diagnose and treat poor responders? Responses from a worldwide survey of IVF clinics

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive BioMedicine Online, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
72 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.
Article details
Title
How to define, diagnose and treat poor responders? Responses from a worldwide survey of IVF clinics
Published in
Reproductive BioMedicine Online, March 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.03.002
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Poor responders represent a significant percentage of couples treated in IVF units (10-24%), but the standard definition of poor responders remains uncertain and consequently optimal treatment options remain subjective and not evidence-based. In an attempt to provide uniformity on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of poor responders, a worldwide survey was conducted asking IVF professionals a set of questions on this complex topic. The survey was posted on www.IVF-worldwide.com, the largest and most comprehensive IVF-focused website for physicians and embryologists. A total of 196 centres replied, forming a panel of IVF units with a median of 400 cycles per year. The present study shows that the definition of poor responders is still subjective, and many practices do not use evidence-based treatment for this category of patients. Our hope is that by leveraging the great potential of the internet, future studies may provide immediate large-scale sampling to standardize both poor responder definition and treatment options.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Master 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 36 50%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 24%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 38 53%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 November 2025.
All research outputs
#10,285,734
of 33,704,742 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive BioMedicine Online
#1,064
of 3,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,686
of 302,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive BioMedicine Online
#9
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,704,742 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 302,320 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.