Cargando…

The Bologna criteria for poor ovarian response: a contemporary critical appraisal

Postponement of child bearing and maternal age at first pregnancy are on the rise, contributing considerably to an increase in age-related infertility and the demand for assisted reproductive technologies (ART) treatment. This brings to the infertility clinics many women with low ovarian reserve and...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Younis, Johnny S., Ben-Ami, Moshe, Ben-Shlomo, Izhar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4650906/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26577149
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13048-015-0204-9
_version_ 1782401580684804096
author Younis, Johnny S.
Ben-Ami, Moshe
Ben-Shlomo, Izhar
author_facet Younis, Johnny S.
Ben-Ami, Moshe
Ben-Shlomo, Izhar
author_sort Younis, Johnny S.
collection PubMed
description Postponement of child bearing and maternal age at first pregnancy are on the rise, contributing considerably to an increase in age-related infertility and the demand for assisted reproductive technologies (ART) treatment. This brings to the infertility clinics many women with low ovarian reserve and poor ovarian response (POR) to conventional stimulation. The Bologna criteria were released to standardize the definition of POR and pave the way for the formulation of evidence-based, efficient modalities of treatment for women undergoing IVF-ET. More than four years have passed since the introduction of these criteria and the debate is still ongoing whether a revision is due. Women with POR comprise several sub-groups with diverse baseline distinctiveness, a major issue that has fueled the discussion. Although antral follicle count (AFC) and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), are considered good predictors of ovarian reserve, their threshold values are still not universally standardized. Different definitions for sonographic AFC and diverse assays for AMH are held responsible for this delay in standardization. Adding established risk factors to the criteria will lead to more reliable and reproducible definition of a POR, especially in young women. The original criteria did not address the issue of oocyte quality, and the addition of risk factors may yield specific associations with quality vs. quantity. Patient’s age is the best available criterion, although limited, to predict live-birth and presumably oocyte quality. High scale studies to validate these criteria are still missing while recent evidence raises concern regarding over diagnosis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4650906
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46509062015-11-19 The Bologna criteria for poor ovarian response: a contemporary critical appraisal Younis, Johnny S. Ben-Ami, Moshe Ben-Shlomo, Izhar J Ovarian Res Review Postponement of child bearing and maternal age at first pregnancy are on the rise, contributing considerably to an increase in age-related infertility and the demand for assisted reproductive technologies (ART) treatment. This brings to the infertility clinics many women with low ovarian reserve and poor ovarian response (POR) to conventional stimulation. The Bologna criteria were released to standardize the definition of POR and pave the way for the formulation of evidence-based, efficient modalities of treatment for women undergoing IVF-ET. More than four years have passed since the introduction of these criteria and the debate is still ongoing whether a revision is due. Women with POR comprise several sub-groups with diverse baseline distinctiveness, a major issue that has fueled the discussion. Although antral follicle count (AFC) and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), are considered good predictors of ovarian reserve, their threshold values are still not universally standardized. Different definitions for sonographic AFC and diverse assays for AMH are held responsible for this delay in standardization. Adding established risk factors to the criteria will lead to more reliable and reproducible definition of a POR, especially in young women. The original criteria did not address the issue of oocyte quality, and the addition of risk factors may yield specific associations with quality vs. quantity. Patient’s age is the best available criterion, although limited, to predict live-birth and presumably oocyte quality. High scale studies to validate these criteria are still missing while recent evidence raises concern regarding over diagnosis. BioMed Central 2015-11-17 /pmc/articles/PMC4650906/ /pubmed/26577149 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13048-015-0204-9 Text en © Younis et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Younis, Johnny S.
Ben-Ami, Moshe
Ben-Shlomo, Izhar
The Bologna criteria for poor ovarian response: a contemporary critical appraisal
title The Bologna criteria for poor ovarian response: a contemporary critical appraisal
title_full The Bologna criteria for poor ovarian response: a contemporary critical appraisal
title_fullStr The Bologna criteria for poor ovarian response: a contemporary critical appraisal
title_full_unstemmed The Bologna criteria for poor ovarian response: a contemporary critical appraisal
title_short The Bologna criteria for poor ovarian response: a contemporary critical appraisal
title_sort bologna criteria for poor ovarian response: a contemporary critical appraisal
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4650906/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26577149
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13048-015-0204-9
work_keys_str_mv AT younisjohnnys thebolognacriteriaforpoorovarianresponseacontemporarycriticalappraisal
AT benamimoshe thebolognacriteriaforpoorovarianresponseacontemporarycriticalappraisal
AT benshlomoizhar thebolognacriteriaforpoorovarianresponseacontemporarycriticalappraisal
AT younisjohnnys bolognacriteriaforpoorovarianresponseacontemporarycriticalappraisal
AT benamimoshe bolognacriteriaforpoorovarianresponseacontemporarycriticalappraisal
AT benshlomoizhar bolognacriteriaforpoorovarianresponseacontemporarycriticalappraisal