The Bologna criteria for poor ovarian response: The good, the bad and the way forward

Human Reproduction

Volumn 29, Issue 9, 2014, Pages 1839-1841

  Venetis, Christos A ^a,b  

^a ST GEORGE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

ovarian stimulation; poor ovarian response; randomized controlled trials

Indexed keywords

BOLOGNA CRITERIA; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONSENSUS; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); NAMED INVENTORIES, QUESTIONNAIRES AND RATING SCALES; OBSTETRIC PATIENT; OVARY; POOR OVARIAN RESPONSE; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; TREATMENT RESPONSE; FEMALE; INFERTILITY; METHODOLOGY; OVULATION INDUCTION; PATIENT SELECTION; PROCEDURES; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

FEMALE; FERTILIZATION IN VITRO; HUMANS; INFERTILITY; OVULATION INDUCTION; PATIENT SELECTION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84906092282     PISSN: 02681161     EISSN: 14602350     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deu138     Document Type: Review

References (26)

1. Altman DG, Dore CJ. Baseline comparisons in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 1991;10:797-799.
2. Berger V. Selection Bias and Covariate Imbalances in Randomized Clinical Trials. England: JohnWiley & Sons, 2007.
3. Bosdou JK, Venetis CA, Kolibianakis EM, Toulis KA, Goulis DG, Zepiridis L, Tarlatzis BC. The use of androgens or androgen-modulating agents in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2012;18:127-145.
4. Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Lambalk CB. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update 2006;12:685-718. (Pubitemid 44605509)
5. Feinstein AR, Landis JR. The role of prognostic stratification in preventing the bias permitted by random allocation of treatment. J Chronic Dis 1976; 29:277-284.
6. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L, ESHRE Working Group on Poor Ovarian Response Definition. ESHRE consensus on the definition of 'poor response' to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. HumReprod 2011;26:1616-1624.
7. Green SB, Byar DP. The effect of stratified randomization on size and power of statistical tests in clinical trials. J Chronic Dis 1978;31:445-454. (Pubitemid 9044092)
8. Hendriks DJ, te Velde ER, Looman CW, Bancsi LF, Broekmans FJ. Expected poor ovarian response in predicting cumulative pregnancy rates: a powerful tool. Reprod Biomed Online 2008;17:727-736.
9. Kernan WN, Viscoli CM, Makuch RW, Brass LM, Horwitz RI. Stratified randomization for clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:19-26. (Pubitemid 29064270)
10. Klinkert ER, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, Te Velde ER. A poor response in the first in vitro fertilization cycle is not necessarily related to a poor prognosis in subsequent cycles. Fertil Steril 2004;81:1247-1253. (Pubitemid 38609306)
11. Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Diedrich K, Tarlatzis BC, Griesinger G. Addition of growth hormone to gonadotrophins in ovarian stimulation of poor responders treated by in-vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2009;15:613-622.
12. Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Tarlatzis BC. DHEA administration in poor responders. Hum Reprod 2011;26:730-731; author reply 731.
13. Kyrou D, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolaou EG, Bontis J, Tarlatzis BC. How to improve the probability of pregnancy in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2009;91:749-766.
14. Nam JM. Sample size determination in stratified trials to establish the equivalence of two treatments. Stat Med 1995;14:2037-2049.
15. Oudendijk JF, Yarde F, Eijkemans MJ, Broekmans FJ, Broer SL. The poor responder in IVF: is the prognosis always poor?: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2012;18:1-11.
16. Pandian Z, McTavish AR, Aucott L, Hamilton MP, Bhattacharya S. Interventions for 'poor responders' to controlled ovarian hyper stimulation (COH) in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;20:CD004379.
17. Papathanasiou A. Implementing the ESHRE 'poor responder' criteria to research studies: Methodological implications. Hum Reprod 2014; 29:1835-1838.
18. Pocock SJ. Allocation of patients to treatment in clinical trials. Biometrics 1979; 35:183-197. (Pubitemid 9136574)
19. Roberts C, Torgerson DJ. Understanding controlled trials: baseline imbalance in randomised controlled trials. BMJ 1999;319:185. (Pubitemid 29326910)
20. Senn SJ. Covariate imbalance and random allocation in clinical trials. Stat Med 1989;8:467-475. (Pubitemid 19105894)
21. Senn S. Baseline comparisons in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 1991; 10:1157-1159.
22. Senn S. Testing for baseline balance in clinical trials. Stat Med 1994; 13:1715-1726. (Pubitemid 24284854)
23. Simon R. Patient subsets and variation in therapeutic efficacy. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1982;14:473-482. (Pubitemid 13147490)
24. Surrey ES, Schoolcraft WB. Evaluating strategies for improving ovarian response of the poor responder undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Fertil Steril 2000;73:667-676. (Pubitemid 30154101)
25. Tarlatzis BC, Zepiridis L, Grimbizis G, Bontis J. Clinical management of low ovarian response to stimulation for IVF: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2003;9:61-76. (Pubitemid 36305584)
26. Venetis CA, Kolibianakis EM, Tarlatzi TB, Tarlatzis BC. Evidence-based management of poor ovarian response. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2010; 1205:199-206.