nach oben

Journal of Ovarian Research

Erschienen in:

Open Access 01.12.2023 | Research

Comparison of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count in the prediction of ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis

verfasst von: Yang Liu, Zhengmei Pan, Yanzhi Wu, Jiamei Song, Jingsi Chen

Erschienen in: Journal of Ovarian Research | Ausgabe 1/2023

Abstract

Background

Increasingly studies reported that the Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) seems to be a promising and reliable marker of functional ovarian follicle reserve, even better than the AFC test. Our study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis to assess the predictive value of AMH and AFC for predicting poor or high response in IVF treatment. An electronic search was conducted, and the following databases were used: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (up to 7 May 2022). The bivariate regression model was used to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression also were used in the presented study. Overall performance was assessed by estimating pooled ROC curves between AMH and AFC.

Results

Forty-two studies were eligible for this meta-analysis. Comparison of the summary estimates for the prediction of poor or high response showed significant difference in performance for AMH compared with AFC [poor (sensitivity: 0.80 vs 0.74, P < 0.050; specificity: 0.81 vs 0.85, P < 0.001); high (sensitivity: 0.81 vs 0.87, P < 0.001)]. However, there were no significant differences between the ROC curves of AMH and AFC for predicting high (P = 0.835) or poor response (P = 0.567). The cut-off value was a significant source of heterogeneity in the present study.

Conclusions

The present meta-analysis demonstrated that both AMH and AFC have a good predictive ability to the prediction of poor or high responses in IVF treatment.

Additional file 1.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-023-01202-5.

Yang Liu and Zhengmei Pan contributed equally to this work.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

AMH

Anti-Müllerian hormone

ROC

Receiver operator characteristic

COS

Controlled ovarian stimulation

IVF

In vitro fertilization

Luteinizing hormone

FSH

Basal follicle-stimulation hormone

AFC

Antral follicle count

True positives

False positives

False negatives

True negatives

DOR

Diagnostic odds ratio

CIs

Confidence intervals

OHSS

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

Background

Controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) is the key to successful assisted reproductive technology (ART). Individualization of COS in in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments should be based on assessing ovarian reserve and predicting ovarian response for every patient [1]. The starting point is to identify if a patient is likely to have a normal, poor, or high response, and choose the best treatment protocol tailored to this prediction [1]. Patients’ characteristics and biomarkers could accurately predict ovarian response [2]. However, although numerous biochemical measures have been developed to predict IVF outcomes, some biochemical measures, such as estradiol (E²), luteinizing hormone (LH), basal follicle-stimulation hormone (FSH), and inhibin concentrations, fluctuate greatly on the day of the menstrual cycle and do not significantly change with decreasing of ovarian reserve, thus they have limited use owing to a low predictive value [3, 4]. Studies have shown that antral follicle count (AFC) is a better indicator to predict ovarian response than other endocrine markers [5, 6].

AMH, a dimeric glycoprotein, is a member of the extended transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) family [7, 8]. AMH production diminishes as the follicles become FSH-dependent [8, 9]. Serum levels are not affected during the menstrual cycle, are most probably not manipulated by exogenous steroid administration, and are closely correlated with reproductive age [10]. Therefore, AMH has been used to predict poor and high response in IVF. Several studies argued that the level of AMH is a better predictor of ovarian response than the AFC [11]. However, the data remains conflicting and inconsistent [10]. Furthermore, some studies continue to advocate both AFC and AMH as possible predictors of ovarian response [12]. Although Broer and his colleagues [13, 14] have performed meta-analyses in 2009 and 2011 and demonstrated that AMH has at least the same level of accuracy and clinical value for the prediction of poor or excessive response as AFC, the number of the included studies in their meta-analysis were small (N = 5–12). Therefore, our study aimed to conduct a meta-analysis that included more eligible studies, to assess the diagnostic value of AMH and AFC for predicting poor or high response in IVF treatment.

Methods

The present meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement [15].

Search strategy and data sources

The data sources include these electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (up to 1 May 2022). The following keywords were used: in vitro fertilization (IVF), in vitro fertilization, fertilization in vitro, assisted, or intracytoplasmic in combination with Anti-Mullerian Hormone (AMH), Mullerian-Inhibiting Factor, Mullerian-Inhibitory Substance, Mullerian Inhibiting Hormone, or Antral Follicle Count (AFC). There was no language limitation, and we also retrieved articles by manual screening. A complete search strategy for literature search has provided in Supplementary material.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria were based on the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, and Study designs (PICOS) structure: P): adult infertile women; I) patients receiving COS for IVF/ICSI; C) AMH or AFC to predict ovarian reserve; O) ovarian response including poor or high response; S) prospective design. Besides, if 2 × 2 tables were constructed from the data presented in the paper, the study was included for final analysis in this meta-analysis. Reviews, conference abstracts, case reports, letters, and animal trials were excluded from this study.

Data extraction

Information was extracted from eligible studies by two authors independently. The following information was included: the authors of the articles, publication year, study location, definition of poor or high response, sample size, true positives (TP), false positives (FP), false negatives (FN), true negatives (TN), and cut-off value. Disagreements were resolved by discussion among all authors.

Study quality assessment

Our study adopted the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) [16] to assess the quality of the included articles, which was the most recommended quality assessment tool for diagnostic accuracy tests. It consists of four main components: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. All components will be assessed for risk of bias, and the first 3 components will also be assessed for clinical applicability. The risk of bias is judged by signature questions, but there are no signature questions for clinical applicability. The “yes”, “no” or “uncertain” answers to the signature questions included in each component may correspond to a bias risk rating of “low”, “high” or “uncertain”. If the answer to all the signature questions in a range is “yes”, then the risk of bias can be assessed as low; If the answer to one of the questions is “no”, the risk of bias is judged to be “high”. The “uncertain” refers to the fact that the literature does not provide detailed information that makes it difficult for the evaluator to make a judgment, and can only be used when the reported data is insufficient.

Statistical analysis

This meta-analysis used Stata V.14.0 (Stata Corp LP) to conduct all statistical analyses. The Cochrane Q and I² statistics were used to test the heterogeneity among all studies. I² > 50% indicates the existence of heterogeneity. The bivariate regression model was used to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve, and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Overall performance was assessed by estimating a pooled ROC curve between AMH and AFC. Furthermore, meta-regression was used to explore the causes of heterogeneity between the studies. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the cut-off value and sample size. Deeks’ funnel plot was used to test publication bias. A two-tailed probability value below 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.

Results

Study selection and study characteristics

In sum, 7327 articles were identified in electronic and manual searches. However, 1847 articles were excluded for duplication, and another 2698 articles were excluded due to study types (reviews, meeting abstracts, letters, animal trials, and case reports). In addition, 2680 records were excluded after reviewing the title and abstract, and we excluded 60 records after reviewing the full text of 102 articles. Finally, 42 articles [10, 11, 17-56] were included in this meta-analysis (Fig. 1).

The characteristics of the eligible studies are listed in Tables 1 and 2. The sample sizes of participants in each study ranged from 44 to 571, and this meta-analysis included 7190 individuals. Of the 42 studies, all studies were prospective design. The publication year of 42 studies ranged from 2002 to 2021. The included studies were from different countries, including China (n = 3), Spain (n = 4), the UK (n = 7), the USA (n = 4), and so on. AMH was used in 29 studies, and AFC in 15 studies in terms of poor response. As for the high response, AMH was used in 13 studies, and AFC in 6 studies.

Table 1

Characteristics of the studies included of AMH for predicting ovarian response

Author	Region	Definition of ovarian response	TP	FP	FN	TN	Cut-off
Poor response
Li et al. 2016 [41]	China	≤ 5 oocytes	23	47	21	321	1.1 ng/ml
Fouda et al. 2010 [27]	Egypt	< 3 follicles	8	18	2	32	0.9 ng/ml
Singh et al. 2013 [51]	India	< 4 oocytes	8	9	2	36	NS
Martínez et al. 2013 [42]	Spain	< 6 oocytes	19	29	8	47	2.31 ng/ml
Baker et al. 2018 [22]	USA	≤ 4 oocytes	20	13	7	120	0.93 ng/ml
Kamel et al. 2014 [57]	Egypt	NS	30	1	5	74	2.8ug/l
Fabregues et al. 2018 [25]	Spain	≤ 3 oocytes	43	77	8	310	NS
Heidar et al. 2015 [30]	Iran	≤ 3 oocytes	16	32	6	134	1.2 ng/ml
Ashrafi et al. 2017 [20]	Iran	≤ 4 oocytes	90	116	32	312	1.05 ng/ml
Neves et al. 2020 [48]	Belgium^a	≤ 3 oocytes	46	56	4	113	1.00 ng/ml
Islam et al. 2016 [31]	Egypt	≤ 3 oocytes	9	40	6	45	1.4 ng/ml
Baker et al. 2021 [21]	USA, Canada	≤ 4 oocytes	47	43	27	355	0.93 ng/ml
Palhares et al. 2018 [17]	Brazil	≤ 3 oocytes	36	41	9	55	1.5 ng/ml
Jayaprakasan et al. 2010 [34]	UK	≤ 3 oocytes	15	32	0	88	0.99 ng/ml
Tolikas et al. 2011 [18]	Greece	< 4 oocytes	20	18	9	43	2.74 ng/ml
Tremellen et al. 2005 [54]	Australia	≤ 4 oocytes	16	8	4	47	8.1 pmol/l
Kunt et al. 2011 [37]	Turkey	< 5 oocytes	46	14	0	120	2.97 ng/ml
Marca et al. 2007 [38]	Italy	< 4 oocytes	10	3	2	33	0.75 ng/ml
Mutlu et al. 2013 [10]	Turkey	< 4 oocytes	34	20	15	123	0.94 ng/ml
Peñarrubia et al. 2005 [49]	Spain	< 3 follicles	11	2	9	58	4.9 pmol/l
Nardo et al. 2009 [46]	UK	< 4 follicles	13	50	2	101	1.00 ng/ml
Fiçicioglu et al. 2006 [26]	Turkey	< 5 follicles	10	3	1	30	0.25 pg/ml
McIlveen et al. 2007 [43]	UK	≤ 4 oocytes	11	26	2	45	1.25 ng/ml
Muttukrishna et al. 2004 [44]	UK	< 4 follicles	15	14	2	38	0.1 ng/ml
Nakhuda et al. 2007 [45]	USA	NS	20	8	2	36	0.35 ng/ml
Gnoth et al. 2008 [29]	Germany	≤ 4 oocytes	32	58	1	41	1.26 ng/ml
Nelson et al. 2007 [47]	UK	≤ 2 oocytes	14	29	5	292	5 pmol/l
van Rooij et al. 2002 [55]	Netherlands	< 4 oocytes	21	9	14	75	0.3 ng/ml
Lee et al. 2011 [39]	Taiwan	NS	11	16	6	93	0.68 ng/ml
High response
Li et al. 2016 [41]	China	> 15 oocytes	165	149	38	219	2.6 ng/ml
Akbari Sene et al. 2021 [50]	Iran	> 15 oocytes	31	16	10	43	4.95 ng/ml
Izhar et al. 2021 [32]	Pakistan	NS	50	14	4	208	6.43 ng/ml
Tan et al. 2021 [53]	China	> 15 oocytes	137	15	30	154	3.6 ng/ml
Heidar et al. 2015 [30]	Iran	> 12 oocytes	30	34	23	93	3.40 ng/ml
Ashrafi et al. 2017 [20]	Iran	≥ 15 oocytes	79	129	40	302	2.5 ng/ml
Vembu et al. 2017 [11]	India	≥ 20 oocytes	11	15	2	132	4.85 ng/ml
Neves et al. 2020 [48]	Belgium^a	> 15 oocytes	13	16	11	179	2.25 ng/ml
Nardo et al. 2009 [46]	UK	> 20 oocytes	14	45	2	104	3.5 ng/ml
Eldar-Geva et al. 2005 [24]	Israel	> 20 oocytes	12	4	5	35	3.5 ng/ml
Aflatoonian et al. 2009 [19]	Iran	> 15oocytes	42	22	3	76	34.5 pmol/l
Lee et al. 2008 [40]	China	NS	19	45	2	196	3.36 ng/ml
Nelson et al. 2007 [47]	UK	≥ 21 oocytes	15	16	10	299	25 pmol/l

NS Not stated, TP True positive, FP False positive, FN False negative, TN True negative

^aRegion included Belgium, Spain, Germany, Italy

Table 2

Characteristics of the studies included of AFC for predicting ovarian response

Author	Region	Definition of ovarian response	TP	FP	FN	TN	Cut-off
Poor response
Fabregues et al. 2018 [25]	Spain	≤ 3 oocytes	40	61	10	326	NS
Ashrafi et al. 2017 [20]	Iran	≤ 4 oocytes	100	116	22	312	8
Neves et al. 2020 [48]	Belgium^a	≤ 3 oocytes	42	32	8	137	6
Islam et al. 2016 [31]	Egypt	≤ 3 oocytes	13	34	2	51	7
Palhares et al. 2018 [17]	Brazil	≤ 3 oocytes	36	40	9	56	8
Frattarelli et al. 2003 [28]	USA	< 3 oocytes	7	10	16	234	4
Jayaprakasan et al. 2010 [34]	UK	≤ 3 oocytes	14	14	1	106	10
Tolikas et al. 2011 [18]	Greece	< 4 oocytes	21	12	8	49	5
Mutlu et al. 2013 [10]	Turkey	< 4 oocytes	45	13	4	130	6
Jayaprakasan et al. 2007 [35]	UK	< 4 follicles	5	4	0	91	6
McIlveen et al. 2007 [43]	UK	≤ 4 oocytes	6	14	7	57	5
Bancsi et al. 2004 [23]	Netherlands	< 4 oocytes	22	10	14	74	4
Yong et al. 2003 [56]	UK	< 3 oocytes	1	1	7	37	4
Järvelä et al. 2003 [32]	Canada	< 5 follicles	10	5	2	28	4
Soldevila et al. 2007 [52]	Spain	≤ 5 follicles	75	52	46	154	8
High response
Izhar et al. 2021 [32]	Pakistan	NS	51	6	3	216	18
Tan et al. 2021 [53]	China	> 15 oocytes	145	19	22	150	18
Ashrafi et al. 2017 [20]	Iran	≥ 15 oocytes	87	116	32	315	15
Neves et al. 2020 [48]	Belgium^a	≤ 3 oocytes	19	46	5	149	10
Eldar-Geva et al. 2005 [24]	Israel	> 20 oocytes	16	26	1	13	14
Aflatoonian et al. 2009 [19]	Iran	> 15oocytes	40	8	5	90	16

NS Not stated, TP True positive, FP False positive, FN False negative, TN True negative

^aRegion included Belgium, Spain, Germany, Italy

Study quality

We adopted the QUADAS-2 to assess the quality of concerning studies (Supplementary material). Regarding risk of bias, 5 studies included consecutive patients, and 37 studies were low risk in index test. Besides, as for applicability of concern, all studies were low risk in both patient selection and index test.

Accuracy of AMH and AFC for predicting poor response

The pooled predictive ability of AMH and AFC for poor response in IVF/ICSI treatments was presented in Table 3. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of AMH were 0.80 (95%CI: 0.74–0.85) and 0.81 (95%CI: 0.75–0.85), respectively. The test for heterogeneity demonstrated that there was significant heterogeneity in both sensitivity and specificity (I² = 68.26% and 92.43%, respectively). The overall ROC curve was presented in Fig. 2A, and AUC was 0.87 (95%CI: 0.84–0.90). The meta-analysis’s overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of AFC were 0.73 (95%CI: 0.62–0.83) and 0.85 (95%CI: 0.78–0.90), respectively. Heterogeneity was found in both sensitivity and specificity (I² = 85.28% and 91.76%, respectively). The overall ROC curve was presented in Fig. 2B, and AUC was 0.87 (95%CI: 0.84–0.90).

Table 3

Results of the subgroup analysis

Subgroup	Number (n)	Sensitivity (95%CI)	Specificity (95%CI)	PLR (95%CI)	NLR (95%CI)	DOR (95%CI)
Cut-off value
AMH-poor response
Overall	29	0.80 (0.74, 0.85)	0.81 (0.75, 0.85)	4.10 (3.20, 5.30)	0.25 (0.19, 0.32)	14.39 (10.26, 20.17)
< 1.00 ng/ml 1	10	0.79 (0.69, 0.89)	0.84 (0.78, 0.89)	4.54 (3.55, 5.83)	0.35 (0.27, 0.44)	16.07 (11.53, 22.39)
≥ 1.00 ng/ml 0	12	0.82 (0.74, 0.90)	0.70 (0.62, 0.77)	2.59 (2.05, 3.28)	0.34 (0.24, 0.49)	8.13 (5.05, 13.09)
AMH-high response
Overall	13	0.81 (0.75, 0.86)	0.84 (0.77, 0.89)	5.00 (3.40, 7.30)	0.22 (0.16, 0.30)	22.67 (12.85, 40.00)
< 4.00 ng/ml	8	0.75 (0.66, 0.83)	0.80 (0.72, 0.88)	3.63 (2.53, 5.19)	0.34 (0.24, 0.49)	11.83 (5.89, 23.73)
≥ 4.00 ng/ml	3	0.86 (0.76, 0.96)	0.88 (0.79, 0.97)	6.93 (2.56, 18.76)	0.17 (0.06, 0.52)	41.01 (5.36, 313.99)
AFC-poor response
Overall	15	0.73 (0.62, 0.83)	0.85 (0.78, 0.90)	4.26 (3.23, 5.62)	0.33 (0.22, 0.49)	13.93 (8.53, 22.74)
< 6	7	0.61 (0.44, 0.79)	0.90 (0.84, 0.95)	5.18 (3.41, 7.85)	0.42 (0.24, 0.76)	14.06 (5.93, 33.34)
≥ 6	7	0.83 (0.72, 0.94)	0.79 (0.69, 0.88)	3.60 (2.53, 5.13)	0.27 (0.17, 0.44)	12.60 (6.31, 25.14)
AFC-high response
Overall	6	0.85 (0.77, 0.91)	0.83 (0.64, 0.94)	5.48 (2.50, 12.02)	0.18 (0.10, 0.32)	35.62 (10.06, 126.08)
< 15	3	0.76 (0.69, 0.84)	0.64 (0.45, 0.82)	2.33 (1.41, 3.85)	0.35 (0.26, 0.46)	8.02 (5.32, 12.10)
≥ 15	3	0.89 (0.85, 0.93)	0.94 (0.89, 0.99)	13.61 (5.92, 31.31)	0.12 (0.07, 0.20)	126.72 (33.10, 485.15)
Definition of poor response (< 4 oocytes)
AMH	11	0.78 (0.70, 0.85)	0.77 (0.69, 0.83)	3.24 (2.50, 4.21)	0.33 (0.24, 0.45)	11.27 (6.62, 19.19)
AFC	9	0.81 (0.74, 0.87)	0.80 (0.73, 0.87)	4.00 (2.76, 5.79)	0.27 (0.19, 0.38)	16.76 (8.76, 30.18)
Sample size
AMH-Poor response
< 200	23	0.81 (0.75, 0.87)	0.80 (0.73, 0.86)	4.12 (3.00, 5.65)	0.23 (0.17, 0.32)	17.80 (10.54, 20.05)
≥ 200	6	0.74 (0.61, 0.84)	0.83 (0.75, 0.88)	4.26 (3.15, 5.78)	0.32 (0.22, 0.47)	13.45 (8.72, 20.74)
AMH-High response
< 200	8	0.83 (0.72, 0.91)	0.78 (0.65, 0.87)	3.79 (2.29, 6.26)	0.21 (0.12, 0.37)	17.62 (7.50, 41.44)
≥ 200	11	0.81 (0.73, 0.87)	0.87 (0.79, 0.92)	6.12 (3.63, 10.33)	0.22 (0.15, 0.33)	27.66 (12.24, 62.49)
AFC-Poor response
< 200	10	0.77 (0.60, 0.88)	0.85 (0.76, 0.91)	5.27 (3.16, 8.79)	0.27 (0.15, 0.50)	19.23 (7.82, 47.30)
≥ 200	5	0.69 (0.50, 0.84)	0.84 (0.73, 0.91)	4.33 (2.86, 6.53)	0.36 (0.22, 0.59)	11.87 (6.83, 20.63)
AFC-high response
< 200	2	0.89 (0.78, 0.99)	0.70 (0.35, 0.99)	-	-	-
≥ 200	4	0.84 (0.76, 0.92)	0.88 (0.75, 0.99)	6.70 (2.57, 17.45)	0.17 (0.08, 0.37)	39.11 (7.15, 213.98)

PLR Positive likelihood ratio, NLR Negative likelihood ratio, DOR Diagnostic odds ratio

Accuracy of AMH and AFC for predicting high response

Table 3 presented the pooled predictive ability of AMH and AFC for high response in IVF/ICSI treatments. The meta-analysis’s overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of AMH were 0.81 (95%CI: 0.76–0.86) and 0.84 (95%CI: 0.77–0.90), respectively. Heterogeneity was found in both sensitivity and specificity (I² = 83.00% and95.90%, respectively). The overall ROC curve was presented in Fig. 2C, and AUC was 0.89 (95%CI: 0.86–0.91). The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of AFC were 0.85 (95%CI: 0.77–0.91) and 0.83 (95%CI: 0.64–0.94), respectively. The test for heterogeneity demonstrated that there was significant heterogeneity in both sensitivity and specificity (I² = 74.53% and 96.70%, respectively). The overall ROC curve was presented in Fig. 2D, and AUC was 0.90 (95%CI: 0.87–0.92).

Subgroup analysis

Comparison of the summary estimates for the prediction of poor or high response showed significant difference in performance for AMH compared with AFC [poor (sensitivity: 0.80 vs 0.74, P < 0.050; specificity: 0.81 vs 0.85, P < 0.001); high (sensitivity: 0.81 vs 0.87, P < 0.001)]. There were no significant differences between the AUC of AMH and AFC for predicting high (P = 0.835) or poor response (P = 0.567). Besides, in the same definition of poor response (< 4 oocytes), AMH and AFC tests had significant differences in sensitivity (0.78 vs 0.81, P < 0.001) and specificities (0.77 vs 0.80, P < 0.001) (Table 3). However, no significant differences were found between the AUC of AMH and AFC (P = 0.800).

Meta-regression analysis

For AMH, the cut-off value was a significant source of heterogeneity (poor: P = 0.020). For AFC, the cut-off value was a significant source of heterogeneity (poor: P < 0.010; high: P < 0.050). However, sample size was not the significant source of heterogeneity (P > 0.05).

Publication bias

Deek’s plot indicated that there was no publication bias in AMH for predicting poor response (P = 0.510, Fig. 3A) and high response AFC (P = 0.348, Fig. 3C), and AFC for predicting poor (P = 0.396, Fig. 3B) and high response (P = 0.818, Fig. 3D).

Discussion

Main findings

The present meta-analysis summarizes the available evidence about the accuracy of AMH and the AFC for predicting poor or high response to ovarian stimulation in IVF treatments. Although the differences were significant, both AMH and AFC had similar sensitivities and specificities. It seems that both AMH and AFC have a good discriminatory capacity to predict poor or high response in IVF. Besides, the ROC curves did not indicate a better predictive ability for AMH than for AFC, and the difference was not statistically significant. Our results were consistent with previous studies [13, 14, 48, 58]. For example, Broer et al. [13, 14] in their meta-analysis thought that both AMH and AFC are accurate predictors of poor or high response to ovarian hyperstimulation, and both tests appear to have clinical value.

Prior research indicated AFC is better than AMH to predict poor ovarian response [10]. However, several studies argued that the level of AMH is a better predictor of ovarian response than the AFC [11, 43]. In our study, results presented that a comparison of the summary estimates for the prediction of poor or high response showed a significant difference in performance for AMH compared with AFC while there was no significant difference in ROC curves. The discrepancies between studies could be associated with the heterogeneity of the definitions of ovarian response to ovarian stimulation. Therefore, our study conducted a subgroup analysis based on the definition of poor response, and we found that AFC was relatively better than AMH tests in both sensitivity (0.81 vs 0.78, P < 0.001) and specificities (0.80 vs 0.77, P < 0.001) when the poor response was defined as < 4 oocytes. However, although no significant differences were found in ROC curves, AFC seemed to perform slightly better than AMH for predicting poor response (0.87 vs 0.84). Also, Broer et al. [13] had similar findings in AFC and AMH for the prediction of high response.

Our study found that the accuracy of AMH and AFC for the prediction of poor or high response had many different kinds of cut-off values, which is difficult for clinical practice. Therefore, the present study performed a subgroup analysis based on the range of cut-off values. The accuracy threshold value of AFC for predicting high response achieved the highest AUC when the cut-off value was ≥ 15. The corresponding AUC was 0.90 (95%CI: 0.88, 0.93) with a sensitivity of 0.89 and a specificity of 0.94, which indicates the predictive ability with this interval is higher than the range of cut-off value < 15.

The characteristics of patients could predict abnormal ovarian response, including age, menstrual cycle length, and body mass index. However, these factors have limited predictive value. Therefore, emerging studies reported that the multivariate models predicted ovarian response, and found the model could improve the predictive power [17, 59-61]. For example, Honnma et al. [60] thought that serum AMH in combination with age is a better indicator than AMH alone. Therefore, clinicians should consider patients’ characteristics and biomarkers together to accurately predict ovarian response in IVF treatments.

Clinical implications

The abnormal response may increase patient discomfort and even decrease the chance of pregnancy. According to the register of the Italian national assisted reproduction technique (ART) in 2010, it reported that 6.7% were canceled due to poor ovarian response, and 1.5% due to ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in 52,676 IVF cycles [1]. In other words, more than 4300 cycles were canceled every year for an abnormal response to stimulation with gonadotrophins. Furthermore, approximately 35% of couples abandon IVF treatments for physical and psychological burden, and 10% for inadequate ovarian response in the first cycle [62]. Therefore, it is important to reduce the dropout rate in IVF treatments by reducing abnormal responses. Our study found that both AMH and AFC were a good discriminatory capacity to predict poor or high response in IVF. Besides, increasingly studies reported that AMH level is becoming a preferred method for the prediction of ovarian reserve in most women [7, 63]. A multivariable approach, combining patient characteristics and AMH also should be taken into account in the evaluation of ovarian response.

Limitations

Several limitations would be noted in this meta-analysis. First, relatively high heterogeneity still existed. Although we found that the cut-off value was a significant source of heterogeneity in the present study, heterogeneity was caused by other factors, such as study quality characteristics, and study populations among all included studies. In addition, we found that the quality of the included studies was poor, so more high-quality studies are needed to confirm our conclusions in the future. Second, language bias may exist due to the inclusion of only English articles in the meta-analysis. Third, the predictive value of AMH and AFC for ovarian response was not always assessed in a head-to-head comparison in the same study. The accuracy of the results will be affected to some extent due to the differences in cut-off value and sample size. For this issue, we have tried to enhance the persuasiveness of the paper through meta regression and subgroup analysis.

Conclusions

In sum, the present meta-analysis demonstrated that both AMH and AFC have a good predictive ability to predict poor or high responses in IVF treatment.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Declarations

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

La Marca A, Sunkara SK. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: from theory to practice. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:124–40.CrossRefPubMed

Huang J, Lin J, Gao H, Wang Y, Zhu X, Lu X, et al. Anti-müllerian hormone for the prediction of ovarian response in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol for IVF. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:325.CrossRefPubMed

Tsepelidis S, Devreker F, Demeestere I, Flahaut A, Gervy C, Englert Y. Stable serum levels of anti-Müllerian hormone during the menstrual cycle: a prospective study in normo-ovulatory women. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:1837–40.CrossRefPubMed

Dewailly D, Andersen CY, Balen A, Broekmans F, Dilaver N, Fanchin R, et al. The physiology and clinical utility of anti-Mullerian hormone in women. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:370–85.CrossRefPubMed

Nahum R, Shifren JL, Chang Y, Leykin L, Isaacson K, Toth TL. Antral follicle assessment as a tool for predicting outcome in IVF–is it a better predictor than age and FSH? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2001;18:151–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bancsi LF, Broekmans FJ, Eijkemans MJ, de Jong FH, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. Predictors of poor ovarian response in in vitro fertilization: a prospective study comparing basal markers of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 2002;77:328–36.CrossRefPubMed

Broer SL, Broekmans FJ, Laven JS, Fauser BC. Anti-Müllerian hormone: ovarian reserve testing and its potential clinical implications. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20:688–701.CrossRefPubMed

Bedenk J, Vrtačnik-Bokal E, Virant-Klun I. The role of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in ovarian disease and infertility. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37:89–100.CrossRefPubMed

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;10:77–83.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Mutlu MF, Erdem M, Erdem A, Yildiz S, Mutlu I, Arisoy O, et al. Antral follicle count determines poor ovarian response better than anti-Müllerian hormone but age is the only predictor for live birth in in vitro fertilization cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013;30:657–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Vembu R, Reddy NS. Serum AMH level to predict the hyper response in women with PCOS and non-PCOS undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation in ART. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2017;10:91–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Ocal P, Sahmay S, Cetin M, Irez T, Guralp O, Cepni I. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count as predictive markers of OHSS in ART cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28:1197–203.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Broer SL, Dólleman M, Opmeer BC, Fauser BC, Mol BW, Broekmans FJ. AMH and AFC as predictors of excessive response in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2011;17:46–54.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Broer SL, Mol BW, Hendriks D, Broekmans FJ. The role of antimullerian hormone in prediction of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:705–14.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Palhares MB, Martins WP, Romão GS, Ferriani RA, Navarro PA. Combining age, antral follicle count, anti-Müllerian hormone, and follicle-stimulating hormone is more accurate than individual markers in predicting poor ovarian response. J Reprod Med. 2018;63(5):461–6.

18.

Tolikas A, Tsakos E, Gerou S, Prapas Y, Loufopoulos A. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) levels in serum and follicular fluid as predictors of ovarian response in stimulated (IVF and ICSI) cycles. Hum Fertil. 2011;14:246–53.CrossRef

19.

Aflatoonian A, Oskouian H, Ahmadi S, Oskouian L. Prediction of high ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: anti-Müllerian hormone versus small antral follicle count (2–6 mm). J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009;26:319–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Ashrafi M, Hemat M, Arabipoor A, Salman Yazdi R, Bahman-Abadi A, Cheraghi R. Predictive values of anti-müllerian hormone, antral follicle count and ovarian response prediction index (ORPI) for assisted reproductive technology outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;37(1):82–8.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Baker VL, Glassner MJ, Doody K, Schnell VL, Gracia C, Shin SS, et al. Validation study of the Access antimüllerian hormone assay for the prediction of poor ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2021;116:575–82.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Baker VL, Gracia C, Glassner MJ, Schnell VL, Doody K, Coddington CC, et al. Multicenter evaluation of the Access AMH antimüllerian hormone assay for the prediction of antral follicle count and poor ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:506-13.e3.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Bancsi LFJMM, Broekmans FJM, Looman CWN, Habbema JDF, Te Velde ER. Impact of repeated antral follicle counts on the prediction of poor ovarian response in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:35–41.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Eldar-Geva T, Ben-Chetrit A, Spitz IM, Rabinowitz R, Markowitz E, Mimoni T, et al. Dynamic assays of inhibin B, anti-Mullerian hormone and estradiol following FSH stimulation and ovarian ultrasonography as predictors of IVF outcome. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:3178–83.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Fabregues F, Gonzalez-Foruria I, Peñarrubia J, Carmona F. Ovarian response is associated with anogenital distance in patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:1696–704.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Fiçicioglu C, Kutlu T, Baglam E, Bakacak Z. Early follicular antimüllerian hormone as an indicator of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 2006;85:592–6.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Fouda F, Rezk AY, Razik MA, El-Shair O, Salim A. Anti-mullerian hormone level is a reliable predictor for cycle cancellation in ICSI. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2010;15:194–9.CrossRef

28.

Frattarelli JL, Levi AJ, Miller BT, Segars JH. A prospective assessment of the predictive value of basal antral follicles in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2003;80:350–5.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Gnoth C, Schuring AN, Friol K, Tigges J, Mallmann P, Godehardt E. Relevance of anti-Mullerian hormone measurement in a routine IVF program. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1359–65.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Heidar Z, Bakhtiyari M, Mirzamoradi M, Zadehmodarres S, Sarfjoo FS, Mansournia MA. Prediction of different ovarian responses using anti-Müllerian hormone following a long agonist treatment protocol for IVF. J Endocrinol Invest. 2015;38:1007–15.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Islam Y, Aboulghar MM, Alebrashy AED, Abdel-Aziz O. The value of different ovarian reserve tests in the prediction of ovarian response in patients with unexplained infertility. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2016;21(2):69–74.CrossRef

32.

Izhar R, Husain S, Tahir MA, Kausar M, Sana T, Ghalib F. Antral follicle count and anti-müllerian hormone level as predictors of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation. J Ultrason. 2021;21:e200–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Järvelä IY, Sladkevicius P, Kelly S, Ojha K, Campbell S, Nargund G. Quantification of ovarian power Doppler signal with three-dimensional ultrasonography to predict response during in vitro fertilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:816–22.PubMed

34.

Jayaprakasan K, Campbell B, Hopkisson J, Johnson I, Raine-Fenning N. A prospective, comparative analysis of anti-Müllerian hormone, inhibin-B, and three-dimensional ultrasound determinants of ovarian reserve in the prediction of poor response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2010;93:855–64.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Jayaprakasan K, Hilwah N, Kendall NR, Hopkisson JF, Campbell BK, Johnson IR, et al. Does 3D ultrasound offer any advantage in the pretreatment assessment of ovarian reserve and prediction of outcome after assisted reproduction treatment? Hum Reprod. 2007;22:1932–41.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Knez J, Kovačič B, Medved M, Vlaisavljević V. What is the value of anti-Müllerian hormone in predicting the response to ovarian stimulation with GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols? Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015;13:58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Kunt C, Ozaksit G, Keskin Kurt R, Cakir Gungor AN, Kanat-Pektas M, Kilic S, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone is a better marker than inhibin B, follicle stimulating hormone, estradiol or antral follicle count in predicting the outcome of in vitro fertilization. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283:1415–21.CrossRefPubMed

38.

La Marca A, Giulini S, Tirelli A, Bertucci E, Marsella T, Xella S, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone measurement on any day of the menstrual cycle strongly predicts ovarian response in assisted reproductive technology. Hum Reprod (Oxford, England). 2007;22:766–71.CrossRef

39.

Lee RK, Wu FS, Lin MH, Lin SY, Hwu YM. The predictability of serum anti-Müllerian level in IVF/ICSI outcomes for patients of advanced reproductive age. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:115.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Lee TH, Liu CH, Huang CC, Wu YL, Shih YT, Ho HN, et al. Serum anti-müllerian hormone and estradiol levels as predictors of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in assisted reproduction technology cycles. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:160–7.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Li R, Gong F, Zhu Y, Fang W, Yang J, Liu J, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone for prediction of ovarian response in Chinese infertile women undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles: a prospective, multi-centre, observational study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2016;33:506–12.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Martínez F, Clua E, Carreras O, Tur R, Rodríguez I, Barri PN. Is AMH useful to reduce low ovarian response to GnRH antagonist protocol in oocyte donors? Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013;29:754–7.CrossRefPubMed

43.

McIlveen M, Skull JD, Ledger WL. Evaluation of the utility of multiple endocrine and ultrasound measures of ovarian reserve in the prediction of cycle cancellation in a high-risk IVF population. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:778–85.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Muttukrishna S, Suharjono H, McGarrigle H, Sathanandan M. Inhibin B and anti-Mullerian hormone: markers of ovarian response in IVF/ICSI patients? BJOG. 2004;111:1248–53.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Nakhuda GS, Sauer MV, Wang JG, Ferin M, Lobo RA. Müllerian inhibiting substance is an accurate marker of ovarian response in women of advanced reproductive age undergoing IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14:450–4.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Nardo LG, Gelbaya TA, Wilkinson H, Roberts SA, Yates A, Pemberton P, et al. Circulating basal anti-Müllerian hormone levels as predictor of ovarian response in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:1586–93.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Nelson SM, Yates RW, Fleming R. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone and FSH: Prediction of live birth and extremes of response in stimulated cycles - Implications for individualization of therapy. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2414–21.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Neves AR, Blockeel C, Griesinger G, Garcia-Velasco JA, Marca A, Rodriguez I, et al. The performance of the Elecsys® anti-Müllerian hormone assay in predicting extremes of ovarian response to corifollitropin alfa. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;41:29–36.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Peñarrubia J, Fábregues F, Manau D, Creus M, Casals G, Casamitjana R, et al. Basal and stimulation day 5 anti-Müllerian hormone serum concentrations as predictors of ovarian response and pregnancy in assisted reproductive technology cycles stimulated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist-gonadotropin treatment. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:915–22.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Sene AA, Ashrafi M, Alaghmand-Fard N, Mohammadi N, Alisaraie MM, Alizadeh A. Anti-müllerian hormone predictive levels to determine the likelihood of ovarian hyper-response in infertile women with polycystic ovarian morphology. Int J Fertil Ster. 2021;15:115–22.

51.

Singh N, Malik E, Banerjee A, Chosdol K, Sreenivas V, Mittal S. “anti-mullerian hormone: marker for ovarian response in controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF patients”: a first pilot study in the Indian population. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2013;63:268–72.CrossRef

52.

Soldevila PNB, Carreras O, Tur R, Coroleu B, Barri PN. Sonographic assessment of ovarian reserve. Its correlation with outcome of in vitro fertilization cycles. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2007;23:206–12.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Tan X, Xi H, Yang J, Wang W. Development and validation of prediction model for high ovarian response in in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer: a longitudinal study. Comput Math Methods Med. 2021;2021:7822119.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Tremellen KP, Kolo M, Gilmore A, Lekamge DN. Anti-mullerian hormone as a marker of ovarian reserve. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;45:20–4.CrossRefPubMed

55.

Van Rooij IAJ, Broekmans FJM, Te Velde ER, Fauser BCJM, Bancsi LFJMM, De Jong FH, et al. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels: a novel measure of ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:3065–71.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Yong PY, Baird DT, Thong KJ, McNeilly AS, Anderson RA. Prospective analysis of the relationships between the ovarian follicle cohort and basal FSH concentration, the inhibin response to exogenous FSH and ovarian follicle number at different stages of the normal menstrual cycle and after pituitary down-regulation. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:35–44.CrossRefPubMed

57.

Kamel HM, Amin AH, Al-Adawy AR. Basal serum anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) is a promising test in prediction of occurrence of pregnancy rate in infertile women undergoing ICSI cycles. Clin Lab. 2014;60(10):1717–23.PubMed

58.

Polyzos NP, Tournaye H, Guzman L, Camus M, Nelson SM. Predictors of ovarian response in women treated with corifollitropin alfa for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:430–7.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Laqqan MM, Yassin MM. Predictive factors of ovarian response to GnRH antagonist stimulation protocol: AMH and age are potential candidates. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2021;26(1):1–1.CrossRef

60.

Honnma H, Baba T, Sasaki M, Hashiba Y, Oguri H, Fukunaga T, et al. Different ovarian response by age in an anti-Müllerian hormone-matched group undergoing in vitro fertilization. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:117–25.CrossRefPubMed

61.

He Y, Xia R, Chen X, Ye D, Tang Y, Li P, et al. Estimation of ovarian response using multiple predictors of ovarian reserve in women undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2013;33:216–20.PubMed

62.

Verberg MF, Eijkemans MJ, Heijnen EM, Broekmans FJ, de Klerk C, Fauser BC, et al. Why do couples drop-out from IVF treatment? A prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2050–5.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Fleming R, Seifer DB, Frattarelli JL, Ruman J. Assessing ovarian response: antral follicle count versus anti-Müllerian hormone. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;31:486–96.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Comparison of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count in the prediction of ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis
verfasst von: Yang Liu
Zhengmei Pan
Yanzhi Wu
Jiamei Song
Jingsi Chen
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2023
Verlag: BioMed Central
Erschienen in: Journal of Ovarian Research / Ausgabe 1/2023
Elektronische ISSN: 1757-2215
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-023-01202-5

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Alter der Mutter beeinflusst Risiko für kongenitale Anomalie

28.05.2024 Kinder- und Jugendgynäkologie Nachrichten

Welchen Einfluss das Alter ihrer Mutter auf das Risiko hat, dass Kinder mit nicht chromosomal bedingter Malformation zur Welt kommen, hat eine ungarische Studie untersucht. Sie zeigt: Nicht nur fortgeschrittenes Alter ist riskant.

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

28.05.2024 Fehlerkultur Podcast

Darüber reden und aus Fehlern lernen, sollte das Motto in der Medizin lauten. Und zwar nicht nur im Sinne der Patientensicherheit. Eine negative Fehlerkultur kann auch die Behandelnden ernsthaft krank machen, warnt Prof. Dr. Reinhard Strametz. Ein Plädoyer und ein Leitfaden für den offenen Umgang mit kritischen Ereignissen in Medizin und Pflege.

Mammakarzinom: Brustdichte beeinflusst rezidivfreies Überleben

26.05.2024 Mammakarzinom Nachrichten

Frauen, die zum Zeitpunkt der Brustkrebsdiagnose eine hohe mammografische Brustdichte aufweisen, haben ein erhöhtes Risiko für ein baldiges Rezidiv, legen neue Daten nahe.

Mehr Lebenszeit mit Abemaciclib bei fortgeschrittenem Brustkrebs?

24.05.2024 Mammakarzinom Nachrichten

In der MONARCHE-3-Studie lebten Frauen mit fortgeschrittenem Hormonrezeptor-positivem, HER2-negativem Brustkrebs länger, wenn sie zusätzlich zu einem nicht steroidalen Aromatasehemmer mit Abemaciclib behandelt wurden; allerdings verfehlte der numerische Zugewinn die statistische Signifikanz.

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Comparison of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count in the prediction of ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

Results

Conclusions

Supplementary Information

Publisher’s Note

Background

Methods

Search strategy and data sources

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Data extraction

Study quality assessment

Statistical analysis

Results

Study selection and study characteristics

Study quality

Accuracy of AMH and AFC for predicting poor response

Accuracy of AMH and AFC for predicting high response

Subgroup analysis

Meta-regression analysis

Publication bias

Discussion

Main findings

Clinical implications

Limitations

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Declarations

Competing interests

Publisher’s Note

Supplementary Information

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Alter der Mutter beeinflusst Risiko für kongenitale Anomalie

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

Mammakarzinom: Brustdichte beeinflusst rezidivfreies Überleben

Mehr Lebenszeit mit Abemaciclib bei fortgeschrittenem Brustkrebs?

Update Gynäkologie

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Results

Conclusions

Supplementary Information

Publisher’s Note

Background

Methods

Search strategy and data sources

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Data extraction

Study quality assessment

Statistical analysis

Results

Study selection and study characteristics

Study quality

Accuracy of AMH and AFC for predicting poor response

Accuracy of AMH and AFC for predicting high response

Subgroup analysis

Meta-regression analysis

Publication bias

Discussion

Main findings

Clinical implications

Limitations

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Competing interests

Publisher’s Note

Supplementary Information

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2023

SPON1 is an independent prognostic biomarker for ovarian cancer

Analysis of serum reproductive hormones and ovarian genes in pubertal female goats

BCAS2 regulates granulosa cell survival by participating in mRNA alternative splicing

Development and validation of a nomogram to predict cancer-specific survival of mucinous epithelial ovarian cancer after cytoreductive surgery

Endocrine profiles and cycle characteristics of infertile 17α-hydroxylase/17,20-lyase Deficiency Patients undergoing assisted Reproduction Treatment: a retrospective cohort study

Correction: Targeting TMEM205 mediated drug resistance in ovarian clear cell carcinoma using oncolytic virus

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Alter der Mutter beeinflusst Risiko für kongenitale Anomalie

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

Mammakarzinom: Brustdichte beeinflusst rezidivfreies Überleben

Mehr Lebenszeit mit Abemaciclib bei fortgeschrittenem Brustkrebs?

Update Gynäkologie