↓ Skip to main content

Defining Low Prognosis Patients Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Technology: POSEIDON Criteria—The Why

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in endocrinology, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
111 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
94 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
Defining Low Prognosis Patients Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Technology: POSEIDON Criteria—The Why
Published in
Frontiers in endocrinology, August 2018
DOI 10.3389/fendo.2018.00461
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sandro C. Esteves, Matheus Roque, Giuliano M. Bedoschi, Alessandro Conforti, Peter Humaidan, Carlo Alviggi

Abstract

Women with impaired ovarian reserve or poor ovarian response (POR) to exogenous gonadotropin stimulation present a challenge for reproductive specialists. The primary reasons relate to the still limited knowledge about the POR pathophysiology and the lack of practical solutions for the management of these conditions. Indeed, clinical trials using the current standards to define POR failed to show evidence in favor of a particular treatment modality. Furthermore, critical factors for reproductive success, such as the age-dependent embryo aneuploidy rates and the intrinsic ovarian resistance to gonadotropin stimulation, are not taken into consideration by the current POR criteria. As a result, the accepted definitions for POR have been criticized for their inadequacy concerning the proper patient characterization and for not providing clinicians a guide for therapeutic management. A novel system to classify infertility patients with "expected" or "unexpected" inappropriate ovarian response to exogenous gonadotropins-the POSEIDON criteria-was developed to provide a more nuanced picture of POR and to guide physicians in the management of such patients. The new standards are provoking as they challenge the current terminology of POR in favor of the newly defined concept of "low prognosis." This article provides readers a critical appraisal of the existing criteria that standardize the definition of POR and explains the primary reasons for the development of the POSEIDON criteria.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 13%
Other 9 10%
Researcher 6 6%
Student > Postgraduate 6 6%
Student > Bachelor 5 5%
Other 12 13%
Unknown 44 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 37%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 45 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 10 January 2021.
All research outputs
#14,920,631
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in endocrinology
#3,086
of 13,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#175,204
of 341,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in endocrinology
#81
of 216 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,021 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 341,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 216 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 60% of its contemporaries.