Recurrent Implantation Failure-update overview on etiology, diagnosis, treatment and future directions

Abstract Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) refers to cases in which women have had three failed in vitro fertilization (IVF) attempts with good quality embryos. The definition should also take advanced maternal age and embryo stage into consideration. The failure of embryo implantation can be a consequence of uterine, male, or embryo factors, or the specific type of IVF protocol. These cases should be investigated to determine the most likely etiologies of the condition, as this is a complex problem with several variables. There are multiple risk factors for recurrent implantation failure including advanced maternal age, smoking status of both parents, elevated body mass index, and stress levels. Immunological factors such as cytokine levels and presence of specific autoantibodies should be examined, as well as any infectious organisms in the uterus leading to chronic endometritis. Uterine pathologies such as polyps and myomas as well as congenital anatomical anomalies should be ruled out. Sperm analysis, pre-implantation genetic screening and endometrial receptivity should be considered and evaluated, and IVF protocols should be tailored to specific patients or patient populations. Treatment approaches should be directed toward individual patient cases. In addition, we suggest considering a new initial step in approach to patients with RIF, individualized planned activities to activate the brain's reward system in attempt to improve immunological balance in the body

A rare cause of postpartum acute hyponatremia

A previously healthy 24-year-old female underwent an emergent caesarean section without a major bleeding described. During the first post-operative days (POD) she complained of fatigue, headache and a failure to lactate with no specific and conclusive findings on head CT. On the following days, fever rose with a suspicion of an obstetric surgery-related infection, again with no evidence to support the diagnosis. On POD5 a new-onset hyponatremia was documented. The urine analysis suggested SIADH, and following a treatment failure, further investigation was performed and demonstrated both central hypothyroidism and adrenal insufficiency. The patient was immediately treated with hydrocortisone followed by levothyroxine with a rapid resolution of symptoms and hyponatremia. Further laboratory investigation demonstrated anterior hypopituitarism. The main differential diagnosis was Sheehan’s syndrome vs lymphocytic hypophysitis. Brain MRI was performed as soon as it was available and findings consistent with Sheehan’s syndrome confirmed the diagnosis. Lifelong hormonal replacement therapy was initiated. Further complaints on polyuria and polydipsia have led to a water deprivation testing and the diagnosis of partial central insipidus and appropriate treatment with DDAVP

Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics

Traditionally, the success of a researcher is assessed by the number of publications he or she publishes in peer-reviewed, indexed, high impact journals. This essential yardstick, often referred to as the impact of a specific researcher, is assessed through the use of various metrics. While researchers may be acquainted with such matrices, many do not know how to use them to enhance their careers. In addition to these metrics, a number of other factors should be taken into consideration to objectively evaluate a scientist′s profile as a researcher and academician. Moreover, each metric has its own limitations that need to be considered when selecting an appropriate metric for evaluation. This paper provides a broad overview of the wide array of metrics currently in use in academia and research. Popular metrics are discussed and defined, including traditional metrics and article-level metrics, some of which are applied to researchers for a greater understanding of a particular concept, including varicocele that is the thematic area of this Special Issue of Asian Journal of Andrology. We recommend the combined use of quantitative and qualitative evaluation using judiciously selected metrics for a more objective assessment of scholarly output and research impact