We have located links that may give you full text access.
Utilization of the Bologna criteria: a promise unfulfilled? A review of published and unpublished/ongoing trials.
Fertility and Sterility 2018 January
OBJECTIVE: To study the use of the Bologna criteria (BC) for the definition of poor ovarian responders (POR) in clinical practice and research.
DESIGN: Systematic review of published and unpublished/ongoing trials between January 2012 and August 2017 on POR.
SETTING: Not applicable.
PATIENT(S): Not applicable.
INTERVENTION(S): The databases were searched using the relevant medical subject headings including all subheadings. The search was limited to humans and English language. The references of the included studies were cross-searched for possibly missed articles. Only clinical trials providing an evidence level ≥ III were included. Case reports, review, letters, and hypothetical articles were excluded.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Extracted studies were divided into two groups: studies in which the BC were used or not.
RESULT(S): One hundred nine published clinical studies analyzing a total of 30,540 women and 112 unpublished/ongoing trials were identified. The BC were used to define POR in 56 (51%) of the published and 44 (39%) of the unpublished trials. The use of the BC gradually increased from 29% to 53% from 2012 to 2017. Asian researchers were more likely to use the BC compared with European and North American researchers (65%, 49%, and 23%, respectively). Neither the design of the study nor the impact factor of the publishing journal was correlated with the use of the BC.
CONCLUSION(S): There is still reluctance to use the BC for the definition of POR, which makes it difficult to combine data from small studies and reach a meaningful conclusion.
DESIGN: Systematic review of published and unpublished/ongoing trials between January 2012 and August 2017 on POR.
SETTING: Not applicable.
PATIENT(S): Not applicable.
INTERVENTION(S): The databases were searched using the relevant medical subject headings including all subheadings. The search was limited to humans and English language. The references of the included studies were cross-searched for possibly missed articles. Only clinical trials providing an evidence level ≥ III were included. Case reports, review, letters, and hypothetical articles were excluded.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Extracted studies were divided into two groups: studies in which the BC were used or not.
RESULT(S): One hundred nine published clinical studies analyzing a total of 30,540 women and 112 unpublished/ongoing trials were identified. The BC were used to define POR in 56 (51%) of the published and 44 (39%) of the unpublished trials. The use of the BC gradually increased from 29% to 53% from 2012 to 2017. Asian researchers were more likely to use the BC compared with European and North American researchers (65%, 49%, and 23%, respectively). Neither the design of the study nor the impact factor of the publishing journal was correlated with the use of the BC.
CONCLUSION(S): There is still reluctance to use the BC for the definition of POR, which makes it difficult to combine data from small studies and reach a meaningful conclusion.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System: From History to Practice of a Secular Topic.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 5
Albumin: a comprehensive review and practical guideline for clinical use.European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2024 April 13
Revascularization Strategy in Myocardial Infarction with Multivessel Disease.Journal of Clinical Medicine 2024 March 27
Clinical practice guidelines on the management of status epilepticus in adults: A systematic review.Epilepsia 2024 April 13
Interstitial Lung Disease: A Review.JAMA 2024 April 23
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app