↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

PIVET rFSH dosing algorithms for individualized controlled ovarian stimulation enables optimized pregnancy productivity rates and avoidance of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
PIVET rFSH dosing algorithms for individualized controlled ovarian stimulation enables optimized pregnancy productivity rates and avoidance of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, August 2016
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s104104
Pubmed ID
Authors

John L Yovich, Birgit Alsbjerg, Jason L Conceicao, Peter M Hinchliffe, Kevin N Keane

Abstract

The first PIVET algorithm for individualized recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) dosing in in vitro fertilization, reported in 2012, was based on age and antral follicle count grading with adjustments for anti-Müllerian hormone level, body mass index, day-2 FSH, and smoking history. In 2007, it was enabled by the introduction of a metered rFSH pen allowing small dosage increments of ~8.3 IU per click. In 2011, a second rFSH pen was introduced allowing more precise dosages of 12.5 IU per click, and both pens with their individual algorithms have been applied continuously at our clinic. The objective of this observational study was to validate the PIVET algorithms pertaining to the two rFSH pens with the aim of collecting ≤15 oocytes and minimizing the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. The data set included 2,822 in vitro fertilization stimulations over a 6-year period until April 2014 applying either of the two individualized dosing algorithms and corresponding pens. The main outcome measures were mean oocytes retrieved and resultant embryos designated for transfer or cryopreservation permitted calculation of oocyte and embryo utilization rates. Ensuing pregnancies were tracked until live births, and live birth productivity rates embracing fresh and frozen transfers were calculated. Overall, the results showed that mean oocyte numbers were 10.0 for all women <40 years with 24% requiring rFSH dosages <150 IU. Applying both specific algorithms in our clinic meant that the starting dose was not altered for 79.1% of patients and for 30.1% of those receiving the very lowest rFSH dosages (≤75 IU). Only 0.3% patients were diagnosed with severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, all deemed avoidable due to definable breaches from the protocols. The live birth productivity rates exceeded 50% for women <35 years and was 33.2% for the group aged 35-39 years. Routine use of both algorithms led to only 11.6% of women generating >15 oocytes, significantly lower than recently published data applying conventional dosages (38.2%; P<0.0001). When comparing both specific algorithms to each other, the outcomes were mainly comparable for pregnancy, live birth, and miscarriage rate. However, there were significant differences in relation to number of oocytes retrieved, but the mean for both the algorithms remained well below 15 oocytes. Consequently, application of both these algorithms in our in vitro fertilization clinic allows the use of both the rFSH products, with very similar results, and they can be considered validated on the basis of effectiveness and safety, clearly avoiding ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 13%
Student > Master 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 14 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Computer Science 2 4%
Engineering 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 19 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 February 2023.
All research outputs
#15,740,207
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#872
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,654
of 381,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#31
of 76 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 381,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 76 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.