4.2 Article

What Number of Oocytes Is Appropriate for Defining Poor Ovarian Response?

期刊

YONSEI MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 56, 期 2, 页码 482-489

出版社

YONSEI UNIV COLL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3349/ymj.2015.56.2.482

关键词

Ovarian stimulation; poor ovarian response; decreased ovarian response; oocyte number

资金

  1. Korea Health Care Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Korea [A120043]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This study attempted to derive an objective and sophisticated definition of poor ovarian response (FOR). Materials and Methods: A total of 176 consecutive in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles (137 patients) with conventional ovarian stimulation during 2009 to 2012 were studied by retrospective analysis. Optimal oocyte number (total or mature) was determined by statistics-based (distribution of oocyte number) and prognosis-based approaches (prediction for IVF outcome). Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis was used to show what number of oocytes could predict IVF pregnancy and whether clinical and laboratory variables could predict newly defined FOR. Results: The 25th percentile of the distribution corresponded to total oocytes <= 2 and mature oocyte <= 1. The cut-off values for the prediction of IVF outcomes were total oocytes >5 and mature oocyte >1. Considering the incidence of FOR (34.1%), a reasonable definition of FOR was decided as total oocytes 52 or mature oocyte <= 1. For the prediction of this new definition, the extreme cut-off value (by setting a false positive rate of 5%) of serum anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) was <= 0.76 ng/mL, which was better than serum follicle stimulating hormone or age. Anew simple definition of POR was derived as total oocytes <= 2 or mature oocyte <= 1 in a previous cycle or a serum AMH level of <= 0.76 ng/mL. When this simple criterion was re-applied to our data, the predictive performance was similar to the Bologna criteria. Conclusion: We here propose a new definition of FOR, which is simple and supported by statistical and prognostic analyses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据