Comparison of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count in the prediction of ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Anti-Müllerian hormone
Antral follicle count
In vitro fertilization
Meta-analysis
Ovarian response
Journal
Journal of ovarian research
ISSN: 1757-2215
Titre abrégé: J Ovarian Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101474849
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Jun 2023
27 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
08
02
2023
accepted:
07
06
2023
medline:
29
6
2023
pubmed:
28
6
2023
entrez:
27
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37370145
doi: 10.1186/s13048-023-01202-5
pii: 10.1186/s13048-023-01202-5
pmc: PMC10294345
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Mullerian Hormone
80497-65-0
Follicle Stimulating Hormone
9002-68-0
Types de publication
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
117Subventions
Organisme : the Yunnan Ten Thousand Youth Talent Program
ID : [2018]73
Organisme : the Medical Discipline Leader in Health Commission of Yunnan Province
ID : D-2019004
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Fertil Steril. 2013 Aug;100(2):430-7
pubmed: 23668992
Hum Reprod. 2008 Jan;23(1):160-7
pubmed: 18000172
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012 Feb;29(2):117-25
pubmed: 22086616
Clin Lab. 2014;60(10):1717-23
pubmed: 25651719
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2013 Jun;30(5):657-65
pubmed: 23508679
Reprod Biomed Online. 2007 Apr;14(4):450-4
pubmed: 17425826
Hum Reprod. 2005 Nov;20(11):3178-83
pubmed: 16113044
Hum Reprod. 2007 Jul;22(7):1932-41
pubmed: 17493981
Hum Reprod. 2008 Jun;23(6):1359-65
pubmed: 18387961
Hum Reprod. 2005 Apr;20(4):915-22
pubmed: 15665015
Hum Reprod Update. 2014 Jan-Feb;20(1):124-40
pubmed: 24077980
Fertil Steril. 2006 Mar;85(3):592-6
pubmed: 16500324
Hum Reprod. 2007 Mar;22(3):778-85
pubmed: 17114197
Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Oct;102(4):816-22
pubmed: 14551013
Reprod Biomed Online. 2020 Jul;41(1):29-36
pubmed: 32466992
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2013 Aug;29(8):754-7
pubmed: 23758138
J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017 Jan;37(1):82-88
pubmed: 27976974
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011 Aug 15;9:115
pubmed: 21843363
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011 Dec;28(12):1197-203
pubmed: 21882017
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2007 Apr;23(4):206-12
pubmed: 17505940
Hum Reprod Update. 2014 May-Jun;20(3):370-85
pubmed: 24430863
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2009 Jun;26(6):319-25
pubmed: 19543966
Hum Reprod. 2007 Jul;22(7):1837-40
pubmed: 17485437
Fertil Steril. 2004 Jan;81(1):35-41
pubmed: 14711542
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020 Jan;37(1):89-100
pubmed: 31755000
J Ultrason. 2021 Aug 16;21(86):e200-e205
pubmed: 34540273
Reprod Biomed Online. 2015 Oct;31(4):486-96
pubmed: 26283017
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2015 Jun 10;13:58
pubmed: 26059906
J Endocrinol Invest. 2015 Sep;38(9):1007-15
pubmed: 25981081
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2001 Mar;18(3):151-5
pubmed: 11411430
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005 Feb;45(1):20-4
pubmed: 15730360
J Hum Reprod Sci. 2017 Apr-Jun;10(2):91-94
pubmed: 28904496
Fertil Steril. 2018 Aug;110(3):506-513.e3
pubmed: 29960708
Hum Reprod. 2018 Sep 1;33(9):1696-1704
pubmed: 30016431
Fertil Steril. 2002 Feb;77(2):328-36
pubmed: 11821092
Mol Hum Reprod. 2004 Feb;10(2):77-83
pubmed: 14742691
BJOG. 2004 Nov;111(11):1248-53
pubmed: 15521870
Reprod Biomed Online. 2016 Oct;33(4):506-512
pubmed: 27502068
Hum Reprod. 2003 Jan;18(1):35-44
pubmed: 12525438
Hum Reprod. 2008 Sep;23(9):2050-5
pubmed: 18544578
Fertil Steril. 2010 Feb;93(3):855-64
pubmed: 19046583
Hum Reprod. 2002 Dec;17(12):3065-71
pubmed: 12456604
Hum Reprod. 2007 Mar;22(3):766-71
pubmed: 17071823
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011 Jun;283(6):1415-21
pubmed: 21562964
Fertil Steril. 2009 Mar;91(3):705-14
pubmed: 18321493
Fertil Steril. 2021 Aug;116(2):575-582
pubmed: 33812650
Fertil Steril. 2003 Aug;80(2):350-5
pubmed: 12909498
Comput Math Methods Med. 2021 Oct 16;2021:7822119
pubmed: 34697556
J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2013 Aug;63(4):268-72
pubmed: 24431654
Hum Fertil (Camb). 2011 Dec;14(4):246-53
pubmed: 22088130
Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2013 Feb;33(2):216-20
pubmed: 23443775
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019 May 28;10:325
pubmed: 31191453
Fertil Steril. 2009 Nov;92(5):1586-93
pubmed: 18930213
Hum Reprod. 2007 Sep;22(9):2414-21
pubmed: 17636277
Hum Reprod Update. 2014 Sep-Oct;20(5):688-701
pubmed: 24821925
Hum Reprod Update. 2011 Jan-Feb;17(1):46-54
pubmed: 20667894
Int J Fertil Steril. 2021 Apr;15(2):115-122
pubmed: 33687164