CONTEXT: Existing biochemical tests for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have poor sensitivity and specificity. Many women with PCOS have high anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) concentrations; thus, this may be a useful addition to the diagnostic criteria. OBJECTIVE: A systematic literature review was performed to assess the true accuracy of AMH in the prediction of PCOS and to determine the optimal diagnostic threshold. DATA SOURCES: Published and gray literature were searched for all years until January 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies defining PCOS according to the Rotterdam criteria and assessing the value of AMH in diagnosing PCOS were selected. Ten studies of the initial 314 hits reporting AMH values in the diagnosis of PCOS were included in the meta-analysis and the construction of the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve. Four studies that plotted individual AMH serum levels of women with PCOS and controls on graphs were selected for individual data extraction. DATA EXTRACTION: Two researchers independently assessed the abstracts resulted from the initial search against the inclusion criteria, graded the papers for selection and verification biases, and selected the papers that assessed the value of AMH in diagnosing PCOS. Data were extracted from 4 studies with the plotted individual data on graphs with the help of computer software. DATA SYNTHESIS: The meta-analysis of the extracted data demonstrated the specificity and sensitivity in diagnosing PCOS in the symptomatic women of 79.4% and 82.8%, respectively, for a cutoff value of AMH of 4.7 ng/mL. The area under the curve was 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.83-0.92), identical with the area under the curve of 0.87 for the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve involving 10 separate studies. CONCLUSIONS: AMH may be a useful initial diagnostic test for PCOS subject to validation in prospective population cohorts.
CONTEXT: Existing biochemical tests for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have poor sensitivity and specificity. Many women with PCOS have high anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) concentrations; thus, this may be a useful addition to the diagnostic criteria. OBJECTIVE: A systematic literature review was performed to assess the true accuracy of AMH in the prediction of PCOS and to determine the optimal diagnostic threshold. DATA SOURCES: Published and gray literature were searched for all years until January 2013. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies defining PCOS according to the Rotterdam criteria and assessing the value of AMH in diagnosing PCOS were selected. Ten studies of the initial 314 hits reporting AMH values in the diagnosis of PCOS were included in the meta-analysis and the construction of the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve. Four studies that plotted individual AMH serum levels of women with PCOS and controls on graphs were selected for individual data extraction. DATA EXTRACTION: Two researchers independently assessed the abstracts resulted from the initial search against the inclusion criteria, graded the papers for selection and verification biases, and selected the papers that assessed the value of AMH in diagnosing PCOS. Data were extracted from 4 studies with the plotted individual data on graphs with the help of computer software. DATA SYNTHESIS: The meta-analysis of the extracted data demonstrated the specificity and sensitivity in diagnosing PCOS in the symptomatic women of 79.4% and 82.8%, respectively, for a cutoff value of AMH of 4.7 ng/mL. The area under the curve was 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.83-0.92), identical with the area under the curve of 0.87 for the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve involving 10 separate studies. CONCLUSIONS:AMH may be a useful initial diagnostic test for PCOS subject to validation in prospective population cohorts.
Authors: Qing Peng; Carrie A Karvonen-Gutierrez; John F Randolph; Bin Nan; Daniel McConnell; Siobán D Harlow Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Michael Bonifacio; Cara K Bradley; Sonal Karia; Mark Livingstone; Mark C Bowman; Steven J McArthur Journal: J Assist Reprod Genet Date: 2015-10-14 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Norbert Gleicher; Vitaly A Kushnir; Sarah K Darmon; Qi Wang; Lin Zhang; David F Albertini; David H Barad Journal: Endocrine Date: 2018-01-06 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Candice Y Johnson; Lauren J Tanz; Christina C Lawson; Penelope P Howards; Elizabeth R Bertone-Johnson; A Heather Eliassen; Eva S Schernhammer; Janet W Rich-Edwards Journal: Arch Environ Occup Health Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 1.663
Authors: Margaret C Garin; Samantha F Butts; David B Sarwer; Kelly C Allison; Suneeta Senapati; Anuja Dokras Journal: Endocrine Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Theresa M Hardy; Mauricio Garnier-Villarreal; Donna O McCarthy; Richard A Anderson; Rebecca M Reynolds Journal: West J Nurs Res Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 1.967