Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C, Stoop D, Camus M, de Vos M, Tournaye H, et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod. 2016;31(2):370–6.

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Drakopoulos P, Santos-Ribeiro S, Bosch E, Garcia-Velasco J, Blockeel C, Romito A, et al. The effect of dose adjustments in a subsequent cycle of women with suboptimal response following conventional ovarian stimulation. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018;9:361.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Polyzos NP, Sunkara SK. Sub-optimal responders following controlled ovarian stimulation: an overlooked group? Hum Reprod. 2015;30(9):2005–8.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1616–24.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Alviggi C, Andersen CY, Buehler K, Conforti A, De Placido G, Esteves SC, et al. A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: from a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1452–3.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Humaidan P, Alviggi C, Fischer R, Esteves SC. The novel POSEIDON stratification of ‘Low prognosis patients in assisted Reproductive Technology’ and its proposed marker of successful outcome. F1000Res. 2016;5:2911.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Esteves SC, Yarali H, Vuong LN, Carvalho JF, Özbek İY, Polat M. Low prognosis by the POSEIDON criteria in women undergoing assisted Reproductive Technology: a multicenter and multinational prevalence study of over 13,000 patients. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021;12:630550.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Noli SA, Ferrari S, Ricci E, Reschini M, Cipriani S, Dallagiovanna C, et al. The role of diet in unexpected poor response to ovarian stimulation: a cross-sectional study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;41(5):874–83.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Barrière P, Avril C, Benmahmoud-Zoubir A, Bénard N, Dejager S. Patient perceptions and understanding of treatment instructions for ovarian stimulation during infertility treatment. Reprod Biomed Soc Online. 2019;9:37–47.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Perez Mayorga M, Gromoll J, Behre HM, Gassner C, Nieschlag E, Simoni M. Ovarian response to follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) stimulation depends on the FSH receptor genotype. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000;85(9):3365–9.

PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Genro VK, Grynberg M, Scheffer JB, Roux I, Frydman R, Fanchin R. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels are negatively related to follicular output RaTe (FORT) in normo-cycling women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(3):671–7.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Alviggi C, Conforti A, Esteves SC, Vallone R, Venturella R, Staiano S, et al. Understanding ovarian hypo-response to Exogenous Gonadotropin in Ovarian Stimulation and its new proposed marker-the Follicle-To-Oocyte (FOI) index. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018;9:589.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Broekmans FJ, de Ziegler D, Howles CM, Gougeon A, Trew G, Olivennes F. The antral follicle count: practical recommendations for better standardization. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(3):1044–51.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Wu S, Hao G, Zhang Y, Chen X, Ren H, Fan Y, et al. Poor ovarian response is associated with air pollutants: a multicentre study in China. EBioMedicine. 2022;81:104084.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Alviggi C, Guadagni R, Conforti A, Coppola G, Picarelli S, De Rosa P, et al. Association between intrafollicular concentration of benzene and outcome of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI cycles: a pilot study. J Ovarian Res. 2014;7:67.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Alviggi C, Conforti A, Santi D, Esteves SC, Andersen CY, Humaidan P, et al. Clinical relevance of genetic variants of gonadotrophins and their receptors in controlled ovarian stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2018;24(5):599–614.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Polyzos NP, Neves AR, Drakopoulos P, Spits C, Alvaro Mercadal B, et al. The effect of polymorphisms in FSHR and FSHB genes on ovarian response: a prospective multicenter multinational study in Europe and Asia. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(6):1711–21.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

De Placido G, Alviggi C, Perino A, Strina I, Lisi F, Fasolino A, Italian Collaborative Group on Recombinant Human Luteinizing Hormone, et al. Recombinant human LH supplementation versus recombinant human FSH (rFSH) step-up protocol during controlled ovarian stimulation in normogonadotrophic women with initial inadequate ovarian response to rFSH. A multicentre, prospective, randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(2):390–6.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Ubaldi FM, Capalbo A, Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Colamaria S, Alviggi C, et al. Follicular versus luteal phase ovarian stimulation during the same menstrual cycle (DuoStim) in a reduced ovarian reserve population results in a similar euploid blastocyst formation rate: new insight in ovarian reserve exploitation. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1488–1495e1.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hansen KR, Morris JL, Thyer AC, Soules MR. Reproductive aging and variability in the ovarian antral follicle count: application in the clinical setting. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(3):577–83.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Eftekhar M, Mohammadi B, Khani P, Lahijani MM. Dual stimulation in unexpected poor responder POSEIDON classification group 1, sub-group 2a: a cross-sectional study. Int J Reprod Biomed. 2020;18(6):465–70.

PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Cimadomo D, Vaiarelli A, Colamaria S, Trabucco E, Alviggi C, Venturella R, et al. Luteal phase anovulatory follicles result in the production of competent oocytes: intra-patient paired case-control study comparing follicular versus luteal phase stimulations in the same ovarian cycle. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(8):1442–8.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Faddy MJ, Gosden RG, Gougeon A, Richardson SJ, Nelson JF. Accelerated disappearance of ovarian follicles in mid-life: implications for forecasting menopause. Hum Reprod. 1992;7(10):1342–6.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Scheffer GJ, Broekmans FJ, Dorland M, Habbema JD, Looman CW, te Velde ER. Antral follicle counts by transvaginal ultrasonography are related to age in women with proven natural fertility. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(5):845–51.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Haadsma ML, Bukman A, Groen H, Roeloffzen EM, Groenewoud ER, Heineman MJ, et al. The number of small antral follicles (2–6 mm) determines the outcome of endocrine ovarian reserve tests in a subfertile population. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(7):1925–31.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Kasapoglu I, Orhan A, Aslan K, Sen E, Kaya A, Avcı B, et al. Are all antral follicles the same? Size of antral follicles as a key predictor for response to controlled ovarian stimulation. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022;42(3):461–6.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Aslan K, Kasapoglu I, Cakir C, Koc M, Celenk MD, Ata B, Avci B, et al. Which is more predictive ovarian sensitivity marker if there is discordance between serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels and antral follicle count? A retrospective analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022;42(5):1461–6.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Weenen C, Laven JS, Von Bergh AR, Cranfield M, Groome NP, Visser JA, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone expression pattern in the human ovary: potential implications for initial and cyclic follicle recruitment. Mol Hum Reprod. 2004;10(2):77–83.

Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Vlaisavljevic V, Apter S, Capalbo A, D’Angelo A, Gianaroli L, Griesinger G, et al. The Maribor consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of performance indicators for clinical practice in ART. Hum Reprod Open. 2021;2021(3):hoab022.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar