Improving Reporting of Clinical Studies Using the POSEIDON Criteria: POSORT Guidelines (original) (raw)
Related papers
F1000Research, 2016
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 ant...
Frontiers in Endocrinology, 2018
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.
Frontiers in Endocrinology
ObjectiveTo estimate the prevalence of low-prognosis patients according to the POSEIDON criteria using real-world data.DesignMulticenter population-based cohort study.SettingsFertility clinics in Brazil, Turkey, and Vietnam.PatientsInfertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology using standard ovarian stimulation with exogenous gonadotropins.InterventionsNone.Main outcome measuresPer-period prevalence rates of POSEIDON patients (overall, stratified by POSEIDON groups and by study center) and the effect of covariates on the probability that a patient be classified as “POSEIDON”.ResultsA total of 13,146 patients were included. POSEIDON patients represented 43.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 42.0–43.7) of the studied population, and the prevalence rates varied across study centers (range: 38.6–55.7%). The overall prevalence rates by POSEIDON groups were 44.2% (group 1; 95% CI 42.6–45.9), 36.1% (group 2; 95% CI 34.6–37.7), 5.2% (group 3; 95% CI 4.5–6.0), and 14.4% (group 4;...
Comparison of ART outcome in patients with poor ovarian response according to POSEIDON criteria
Scientific Reports
The aim of this study is to evaluate whether the patient-oriented strategies encompassing individualized oocyte number (POSEIDON) criteria can reflect the prognosis of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) by comparing the results of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) between four POSEIDON and normal responder (NR) groups. In total, 225 patients were included in this retrospective observational study. The patients underwent various COS protocols and in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection, followed by fresh or frozen embryo transfer. Based on their clinical and demographic data, patients were divided into four groups according to the POSEIDON classification, and their ART outcomes were evaluated. Statistical analyses were performed using R version 4.0.5, and a p-value of < 0.05 was considered significant. The NR group had the highest number of total oocytes retrieved and total embryos obtained, as well as the best ART outcome in terms of clinical pregnancy...
Frontiers in Endocrinology, 2019
To study the actual controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) management in women with suboptimal response, comparing clinical outcomes to the gonadotropins consume, considering potential role of luteinizing hormone (LH) addition to follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). Design: Monocentric, observational, retrospective, real-world, clinical trial on fresh intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles retrieving from 1 to 9 oocytes, performed at Humanitas Fertility Center from January 1st, 2012 to December 31st, 2015. Methods: COS protocols provided gonadotropin releasing-hormone (GnRH) agonist long, flare-up, short and antagonist. Both recombinant and urinary FSH were used for COS and LH was added according to the clinical practice. ICSI outcomes considered were: gonadotropins dosages; total, mature, injected and frozen oocytes; cumulative, transferred and frozen embryos; implantation rate; pregnancy, delivery and miscarriage rates. Outcomes were compared according to the gonadotropin regimen used during COS. Results: Our cohort showed 20.8% of low responders, defined as 1-3 oocytes retrieved and 79.2% of "suboptimal" responders, defined as 4-9 oocytes retrieved. According to recent POSEIDON stratification, cycles were divided in group 1 (6.9%), 2 (19.8%), 3 (11.7%), and 4 (61.5%). The cohort was divided in 3 groups, according to the gonadotropin's regimen. Women treated with FSH plus LH showed worst prognostic factors, in terms of age, basal FSH, AMH, and AFC. This difference was evident in suboptimal responders, whereas only AMH and AFC were different among treatment groups in low responders. Although a different result, in terms of oocytes and embryos detected, major ICSI outcomes (i.e., pregnancy and delivery rates) were similar among groups of COS treatment. Outcomes were significantly different among Poseidon groups. Implantation, pregnancy and delivery rates were significantly higher in Poseidon group 1 Levi-Setti et al. Low Prognosis Women in IVF and progressively declined in other POSEIDON groups, reaching the worst percentage in group 4. Conclusions: In clinical practice, women with worst prognosis factors are generally treated with a combination of LH and FSH. Despite low prognosis women showed a reduced number of oocytes retrieved, the final ICSI outcome, in terms of pregnancy, is similarly among treatment group. This result suggests that the LH addition to FSH during COS could improve the quality of oocytes retrieved, balancing those differences that are evident at baseline.
A protocol developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set for infertility
Human Reproduction Open, 2018
We aim to produce, disseminate and implement a core outcome set for future infertility research. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating infertility treatments have reported many different outcomes, which are often defined and measured in different ways. Such variation contributes to an inability to compare, contrast and combine results of individual RCTs. The development of a core outcome set will ensure outcomes important to key stakeholders are consistently collected and reported across future infertility research. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a consensus study using the modified Delphi method. All stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, researchers and people with lived experience of infertility will be invited to participate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: An international steering group, including people with lived experience of infertility, healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals and researchers, has been formed to guide the development of this core outcome set. Potential core outcomes have been identified through a comprehensive literature review of RCTs evaluating treatments for infertility and will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Participants will be asked to score potential core outcomes on a nine-point Likert scale anchored between one (not important) and nine (critical). Repeated reflection and rescoring should promote convergence towards consensus 'core' outcomes. We will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for individual core outcomes.
Fertility and Sterility, 2021
STUDY QUESTION: Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER: Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. † This article has not been externally peer reviewed. ‡ This article has been published simultaneously in Fertility and Sterility.
2019
STUDY QUESTION: Which are the main research interests among patients of assisted reproductive technologies (ART)?SUMMARY ANSWER: Patients identified as research priorities that deserve further investigation: success rates and risks of ART, side-effects of treatments, resources to cope with infertility, effectiveness of alternative therapies, lifestyle habits to protect fertility, oocyte quality and ovarian reserve, and causes of genetic or hereditary infertility.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The involvement of patients and caregivers in setting research agendas in medicine has gathered significant momentum in the last decade. Patients’ involvement in setting research priorities offers several benefits: improved patient knowledge and awareness of their condition; greater understanding of the medical professionals of the impact of the condition on patients’ quality of life; reduced costs associated with redundant research activities. This is may be also applicable to research in ...
Effectiveness of assisted reproductive technology (ART)
Evidence report/technology assessment, 2008
We reviewed the evidence regarding the outcomes of interventions used in ovulation induction, superovulation, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) for the treatment of infertility. Short-term outcomes included pregnancy, live birth, multiple gestation, and complications. Long-term outcomes included pregnancy and post-pregnancy complications for both mothers and infants. MEDLINE and Cochrane Collaboration resources. We included studies published in English from January 2000 through January 2008. For short-term outcomes, we excluded non-randomized studies and studies where a pregnancy or live birth rate per subject could not be calculated. For long-term outcomes, we excluded studies with fewer than 100 subjects and those without a control group. Articles were abstracted for relevant details, and relative risks or odds ratios, with 95 percent confidence intervals, were calculated for outcomes of interest for each study. We identified 5294 abstracts and (for the three questions discussed in...
The clinical benefit and safety of current and future assisted reproductive technology
Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 2012
Since the first birth by IVF was achieved in 1978, the techniques involved in assisted reproductive technology have grown at an enormous rate. However, new technology has rarely been robustly validated before clinical use and developing scientific understanding of the available techniques has done little to alter their use. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in the available clinical studies and endpoints. The benefits of some technologies already established for routine use are currently dubious and there are clear ...