Carlo Alviggi, Peter Humaidan, Robert Fischer, Alessandro Conforti, Michael H Dahan, Antonio La Marca, Raoul Orvieto, Nikolaos P Polyzos, Matheus Roque, Sesh K Sunkara, Filippo Maria Ubaldi, Lan Vuong, Hakan Yarali, Thomas D'Hooghe, Salvatore Longobardi, Sandro C Esteves
{"title":"抗逆转录病毒疗法中预后不良的患者：德尔菲共识，以确定潜在的临床意义并衡量 POSEIDON 标准的影响。","authors":"Carlo Alviggi, Peter Humaidan, Robert Fischer, Alessandro Conforti, Michael H Dahan, Antonio La Marca, Raoul Orvieto, Nikolaos P Polyzos, Matheus Roque, Sesh K Sunkara, Filippo Maria Ubaldi, Lan Vuong, Hakan Yarali, Thomas D'Hooghe, Salvatore Longobardi, Sandro C Esteves","doi":"10.1186/s12958-024-01291-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Currently, there is no consensus on the optimal management of women with low prognosis in ART. In this Delphi consensus, a panel of international experts provided real-world clinical perspectives on a series of literature-supported consensus statements regarding the overall relevance of the POSEIDON criteria for women with low prognosis in ART.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a Delphi-consensus framework, twelve experts plus two Scientific Coordinators discussed and amended statements and supporting references proposed by the Scientific Coordinators (Round 1). Statements were distributed via an online survey to an extended panel of 53 experts, of whom 36 who voted anonymously on their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement using a six-point Likert-type scale (1 = Absolutely agree; 2 = More than agree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Disagree; 5 = More than disagree; 6 = Absolutely disagree) (Round 2). Consensus was reached if > 66% of participants agreed or disagreed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The extended panel voted on seventeen statements and subcategorized them according to relevance. All but one statement reached consensus during the first round; the remaining statement reached consensus after rewording. Statements were categorized according to impact, low-prognosis validation, outcomes and patient management. The POSEIDON criteria are timely and clinically sound. The preferred success measure is cumulative live birth and key management strategies include the use of recombinant FSH preparations, supplementation with r-hLH, dose increases and oocyte/embryo accumulation through vitrification. Tools such as the ART Calculator and Follicle-to-Oocyte Index may be considered. Validation data from large, prospective studies in each POSEIDON group are now needed to corroborate existing retrospective data.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This Delphi consensus provides an overview of expert opinion on the clinical implications of the POSEIDON criteria for women with low prognosis to ovarian stimulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":21011,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology","volume":"22 1","pages":"122"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11465546/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patients with low prognosis in ART: a Delphi consensus to identify potential clinical implications and measure the impact of POSEIDON criteria.\",\"authors\":\"Carlo Alviggi, Peter Humaidan, Robert Fischer, Alessandro Conforti, Michael H Dahan, Antonio La Marca, Raoul Orvieto, Nikolaos P Polyzos, Matheus Roque, Sesh K Sunkara, Filippo Maria Ubaldi, Lan Vuong, Hakan Yarali, Thomas D'Hooghe, Salvatore Longobardi, Sandro C Esteves\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12958-024-01291-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Currently, there is no consensus on the optimal management of women with low prognosis in ART. In this Delphi consensus, a panel of international experts provided real-world clinical perspectives on a series of literature-supported consensus statements regarding the overall relevance of the POSEIDON criteria for women with low prognosis in ART.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a Delphi-consensus framework, twelve experts plus two Scientific Coordinators discussed and amended statements and supporting references proposed by the Scientific Coordinators (Round 1). Statements were distributed via an online survey to an extended panel of 53 experts, of whom 36 who voted anonymously on their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement using a six-point Likert-type scale (1 = Absolutely agree; 2 = More than agree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Disagree; 5 = More than disagree; 6 = Absolutely disagree) (Round 2). Consensus was reached if > 66% of participants agreed or disagreed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The extended panel voted on seventeen statements and subcategorized them according to relevance. All but one statement reached consensus during the first round; the remaining statement reached consensus after rewording. Statements were categorized according to impact, low-prognosis validation, outcomes and patient management. The POSEIDON criteria are timely and clinically sound. The preferred success measure is cumulative live birth and key management strategies include the use of recombinant FSH preparations, supplementation with r-hLH, dose increases and oocyte/embryo accumulation through vitrification. Tools such as the ART Calculator and Follicle-to-Oocyte Index may be considered. Validation data from large, prospective studies in each POSEIDON group are now needed to corroborate existing retrospective data.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This Delphi consensus provides an overview of expert opinion on the clinical implications of the POSEIDON criteria for women with low prognosis to ovarian stimulation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21011,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"122\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11465546/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-024-01291-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-024-01291-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
Patients with low prognosis in ART: a Delphi consensus to identify potential clinical implications and measure the impact of POSEIDON criteria.
Background: Currently, there is no consensus on the optimal management of women with low prognosis in ART. In this Delphi consensus, a panel of international experts provided real-world clinical perspectives on a series of literature-supported consensus statements regarding the overall relevance of the POSEIDON criteria for women with low prognosis in ART.
Methods: Using a Delphi-consensus framework, twelve experts plus two Scientific Coordinators discussed and amended statements and supporting references proposed by the Scientific Coordinators (Round 1). Statements were distributed via an online survey to an extended panel of 53 experts, of whom 36 who voted anonymously on their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement using a six-point Likert-type scale (1 = Absolutely agree; 2 = More than agree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Disagree; 5 = More than disagree; 6 = Absolutely disagree) (Round 2). Consensus was reached if > 66% of participants agreed or disagreed.
Results: The extended panel voted on seventeen statements and subcategorized them according to relevance. All but one statement reached consensus during the first round; the remaining statement reached consensus after rewording. Statements were categorized according to impact, low-prognosis validation, outcomes and patient management. The POSEIDON criteria are timely and clinically sound. The preferred success measure is cumulative live birth and key management strategies include the use of recombinant FSH preparations, supplementation with r-hLH, dose increases and oocyte/embryo accumulation through vitrification. Tools such as the ART Calculator and Follicle-to-Oocyte Index may be considered. Validation data from large, prospective studies in each POSEIDON group are now needed to corroborate existing retrospective data.
Conclusions: This Delphi consensus provides an overview of expert opinion on the clinical implications of the POSEIDON criteria for women with low prognosis to ovarian stimulation.
期刊介绍：
Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology publishes and disseminates high-quality results from excellent research in the reproductive sciences.
The journal publishes on topics covering gametogenesis, fertilization, early embryonic development, embryo-uterus interaction, reproductive development, pregnancy, uterine biology, endocrinology of reproduction, control of reproduction, reproductive immunology, neuroendocrinology, and veterinary and human reproductive medicine, including all vertebrate species.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
