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

29Citations
Citations of this article
61Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Liu, Y., Pan, Z., Wu, Y., Song, J., & Chen, J. (2023). Comparison of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count in the prediction of ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Ovarian Research, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-023-01202-5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free