1,721,117 research outputs found

    The novel POSEIDON stratification of ‘Low prognosis patients in Assisted Reproductive Technology’ and its proposed marker of successful outcome [version 1; referees: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

    No full text
    In reproductive medicine little progress has been achieved regarding the clinical management of patients with a reduced ovarian reserve or poor ovarian response (POR) to stimulation with exogenous gonadotropins -a frustrating experience for clinicians as well as patients. Despite the efforts to optimize the definition of this subgroup of patients, the existing POR criteria unfortunately comprise a heterogeneous population and, importantly, do not offer any recommendations for clinical handling. Recently, the POSEIDON group (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number) proposed a new stratification of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in patients with a reduced ovarian reserve or unexpected inappropriate ovarian response to exogenous gonadotropins. In brief, four subgroups have been suggested based on quantitative and qualitative parameters, namely, i. Age and the expected aneuploidy rate; ii. Ovarian biomarkers (i.e. antral follicle count [AFC] and anti-Müllerian hormone [AMH]), and iii. Ovarian response - provided a previous stimulation cycle was performed. The new classification introduces a more nuanced picture of the “low prognosis patient” in ART, using clinically relevant criteria to guide the physician to most optimally manage this group of patients. The POSEIDON group also introduced a new measure for successful ART treatment, namely, the ability to retrieve the number of oocytes needed for the specific patient to obtain at least one euploid embryo for transfer. This feature represents a pragmatic endpoint to clinicians and enables the development of prediction models aiming to reduce the time-to-pregnancy (TTP). Consequently, the POSEIDON stratification should not be applied for retrospective analyses having live birth rate (LBR) as endpoint. Such an approach would fail as the attribution of patients to each Poseidon group is related to specific requirements and could only be made prospectively. On the other hand, any prospective approach (i.e. RCT) should be performed separately in each specific group

    POSEIDON groups and their distinct reproductive outcomes: Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness insights from real-world data research

    No full text
    : The Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeDOocyte Number (POSEIDON) criteria identify and classify the so-called 'low-prognosis' patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART). Recent large-scale studies using real-world data (RWD) have shown that patients classified under this system have distinct reproductive outcomes. Moreover, these studies also confirm that POSEIDON patients are commonly found in fertility centers. RWD has substantiated the validity of the POSEIDON biomarkers' thresholds (antral follicle count [AFC] and/or anti-Müllerian hormone [AMH]) for patient classification. Lastly, a predictive model has been developed and validated to estimate the POSEIDON metric of success (i.e., number of oocytes needed to achieve at least one euploid blastocyst). Although more evidence is needed in this area, current insights from RWD research indicate that infertility patients can be counseled and managed more effectively under the POSEIDON scope, with potential gains for all parties involved

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed

    Variations on the Author

    Full text link
    “Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship

    Appropriate Similarity Measures for Author Cocitation Analysis

    Full text link
    We provide a number of new insights into the methodological discussion about author cocitation analysis. We first argue that the use of the Pearson correlation for measuring the similarity between authors’ cocitation profiles is not very satisfactory. We then discuss what kind of similarity measures may be used as an alternative to the Pearson correlation. We consider three similarity measures in particular. One is the well-known cosine. The other two similarity measures have not been used before in the bibliometric literature. Finally, we show by means of an example that our findings have a high practical relevance.information science;Pearson correlation;cosine;similarity measure;author cocitation analysis

    Interventions to prevent or reduce the incidence and severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a systematic umbrella review of the best clinical evidence

    Full text link
    Abstract Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is a potentially life-threating iatrogenic complication of the early luteal phase and/or early pregnancy after in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. The aim of the current study was to identify the most effective methods for preventing of and reducing the incidence and severity of OHSS in IVF patients. A systematic review of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-analysis was used to assess each potential intervention (PROSPERO website, CRD 268626) and only studies with the highest quality were included in the qualitative analysis. Primary outcomes included prevention and reduction of OHSS incidence and severity. Secondary outcomes were maternal death, incidence of hospital admission, days of hospitalization, and reproductive outcomes, such as incidence of live-births, clinical pregnancies, pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriages, and oocytes retrieved. A total of specific interventions related to OHSS were analyzed in 28 systematic reviews of RCTs with meta-analyses. The quality assessment of the included studies was high, moderate, and low for 23, 2, and 3 studies, respectively. The certainty of evidence (CoE) for interventions was reported for 37 specific situations/populations and resulted high, moderate, and low-to-very low for one, 5, and 26 cases, respectively, while it was not reported in 5 cases. Considering the effective interventions without deleterious reproductive effects, GnRH-ant co-treatment (36 RCTs; OR 0.61, 95% C 0.51 to 0.72, n = 7,944; I2 = 31%) and GnRH agonist triggering (8 RCTs; OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.47, n = 989; I2 = 42%) emerged as the most effective interventions for preventing OHSS with a moderate CoE, even though elective embryo cryopreservation exhibited a low CoE. Furthermore, the use of mild ovarian stimulation (9 RCTs; RR 0.26, CI 0.14 to 0.49, n = 1,925; I2 = 0%), and dopaminergic agonists (10 RCTs; OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.44, n = 1,202; I2 = 13%) coadministration proved effective and safe with a moderate CoE. In conclusion, the current study demonstrates that only a few interventions currently can be considered effective to reduce the incidence of OHSS and its severity with high/moderate CoE despite the numerous published studies on the topic. Further well-designed RCTs are needed, particularly for GnRH-a down-regulated IVF cycles

    Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Biological Products: Does Potency Predict Clinical Efficacy?

    Full text link
    Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), together with luteinizing hormone (LH) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), plays a fundamental role in human reproduction. The discovery of FSH and other gonadotropins was a defining moment in our understanding of reproduction and led to the development of many treatments for infertility. In this regard, exogenous FSH has been used to treat infertility in women for decades. Today, several recombinant and highly purified urinary forms of FSH are used in medically assisted reproduction (MAR). However, differences in the macro- and micro-heterogeneity of FSH result in a variety of FSH glycoforms, with glycoform composition determining the bioactivity (or potency), pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) profiles, and clinical efficacy of the different forms of FSH. This review illustrates how the structural heterogeneity of FSH glycoforms affects the biological activity of human FSH products, and why potency does not predict effects in humans in terms of PK, PD, and clinical response

    Dispelling the Myths Behind First-author Citation Counts

    Full text link
    We conducted a full-scale evaluative citation analysis study of scholars in the XML research field to explore just how different from each other author rankings resulting from different citation counting methods actually are, and to demonstrate the capability of emerging data and tools on the Web in supporting more realistic citation counting methods. Our results contest some common arguments for the continued use of first-author citation counts in the evaluation of scholars, such as high correlations between author rankings by first-author citation counts and other citation counting methods, and high costs of using more realistic citation counting methods that are not well-supported by the ISI databases. It is argued that increasingly available digital full text research papers make it possible for citation analysis studies to go beyond what the ISI databases have directly supported and to employ more sophisticated methods

    Author Index

    No full text
    Nao informado
    corecore