Lingnv Yao1, Wei Zhang1, Hong Li2, Wenqin Lin1. 1. Reproductive Medcine Center, First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University, School of Medicine China. 2. Department of Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery, First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This meta-analysis tries to find and confirm the true prognostic value of serum AMH and the follicle fluid AMH (FF AMH) on the outcome of ART. METHOD: We identified all studies published by March 2014 with data related to in vitro fertilization", "intracytoplasmic sperm injection", "assisted reproductive technology" and "antimullerian hormone" in Pubmed database. Studies were included if 2 × 2 tables for outcomes of pregnancy in IVF patients in relation to AMH could be constructed or studies which used T-tests to compare clinical indexes including AMH in pregnant and non-pregnant women. And all the patients were less than 46 years old. RESULTS: A total of 26 studies could be used for this meta-analysis. Of these articles 22 studies could be constructed 2 × 2 tables, with 15 for predicting pregnancy and 7 for non-pregnancy. 11 studies used the analysis of T-test, with 7 articles were duplicated. And of the 11 articles, 8 were for the analysis of serum AMH in prediction of pregnancy, 3 were for FF AMH. Because of heterogeneity among studies, calculation of a summary point estimate for sensitivity and specificity was not possible. For the analysis of serum AMH on non-pregnancy, the heterogeneity was moderate (I-squared of 65.9%), the curves indicated positive find (the AUROC is 0.73, 95% CI is 0.69-0.77.). In the T-test group of serum AMH, the DOR for women with pregnancy outcome was 0.232 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.034-0.43), with less heterogeneity (I-squared of 45.1%). Unfortunately, the predictive value of FF AMH on pregnancy is still unclear because of large heterogeneity (I-squared of 90.5%). CONCLUSION: Serum AMH, as an independent parameter, can predict pregnancy outcome after assisted conception and the positive correlation with serum AMH and non-pregnancy should not be ignored either. The predictive value of FF AMH on pregnancy is still unclear.
PURPOSE: This meta-analysis tries to find and confirm the true prognostic value of serum AMH and the follicle fluid AMH (FF AMH) on the outcome of ART. METHOD: We identified all studies published by March 2014 with data related to in vitro fertilization", "intracytoplasmic sperm injection", "assisted reproductive technology" and "antimullerian hormone" in Pubmed database. Studies were included if 2 × 2 tables for outcomes of pregnancy in IVFpatients in relation to AMH could be constructed or studies which used T-tests to compare clinical indexes including AMH in pregnant and non-pregnant women. And all the patients were less than 46 years old. RESULTS: A total of 26 studies could be used for this meta-analysis. Of these articles 22 studies could be constructed 2 × 2 tables, with 15 for predicting pregnancy and 7 for non-pregnancy. 11 studies used the analysis of T-test, with 7 articles were duplicated. And of the 11 articles, 8 were for the analysis of serum AMH in prediction of pregnancy, 3 were for FF AMH. Because of heterogeneity among studies, calculation of a summary point estimate for sensitivity and specificity was not possible. For the analysis of serum AMH on non-pregnancy, the heterogeneity was moderate (I-squared of 65.9%), the curves indicated positive find (the AUROC is 0.73, 95% CI is 0.69-0.77.). In the T-test group of serum AMH, the DOR for women with pregnancy outcome was 0.232 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.034-0.43), with less heterogeneity (I-squared of 45.1%). Unfortunately, the predictive value of FF AMH on pregnancy is still unclear because of large heterogeneity (I-squared of 90.5%). CONCLUSION: Serum AMH, as an independent parameter, can predict pregnancy outcome after assisted conception and the positive correlation with serum AMH and non-pregnancy should not be ignored either. The predictive value of FF AMH on pregnancy is still unclear.
Authors: I A J van Rooij; F J M Broekmans; E R te Velde; B C J M Fauser; L F J M M Bancsi; F H de Jong; A P N Themmen Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Jesper M J Smeenk; Fred C G J Sweep; Gerhard A Zielhuis; Jan A M Kremer; Chris M G Thomas; Didi D M Braat Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2006-11-01 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: A La Marca; G Sighinolfi; D Radi; C Argento; E Baraldi; A Carducci Artenisio; G Stabile; A Volpe Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2009-09-30 Impact factor: 15.610
Authors: Selma İnat Capkın; Sebnem Ozyer; Rana Karayalçın; Ozlem Moraloğlu; Sarp Ozcan; Mustafa Uğur Journal: J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc Date: 2012-03-01
Authors: Nigel Pereira; Robert Setton; Allison C Petrini; Jovana P Lekovich; Rony T Elias; Steven D Spandorfer Journal: Womens Health (Lond) Date: 2016-02-22