Cargando…

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

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 p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liu, Yang, Pan, Zhengmei, Wu, Yanzhi, Song, Jiamei, Chen, Jingsi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10294345/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37370145
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13048-023-01202-5
_version_ 1785063175205421056
author Liu, Yang
Pan, Zhengmei
Wu, Yanzhi
Song, Jiamei
Chen, Jingsi
author_facet Liu, Yang
Pan, Zhengmei
Wu, Yanzhi
Song, Jiamei
Chen, Jingsi
author_sort Liu, Yang
collection PubMed
description 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13048-023-01202-5.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10294345
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102943452023-06-28 Comparison of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count in the prediction of ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis Liu, Yang Pan, Zhengmei Wu, Yanzhi Song, Jiamei Chen, Jingsi J Ovarian Res Research 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13048-023-01202-5. BioMed Central 2023-06-27 /pmc/articles/PMC10294345/ /pubmed/37370145 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13048-023-01202-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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.
spellingShingle Research
Liu, Yang
Pan, Zhengmei
Wu, Yanzhi
Song, Jiamei
Chen, Jingsi
Comparison of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count in the prediction of ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Comparison of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count in the prediction of ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Comparison of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count in the prediction of ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count in the prediction of ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count in the prediction of ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Comparison of anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count in the prediction of ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort comparison of anti-müllerian hormone and antral follicle count in the prediction of ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10294345/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37370145
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13048-023-01202-5
work_keys_str_mv AT liuyang comparisonofantimullerianhormoneandantralfolliclecountinthepredictionofovarianresponseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT panzhengmei comparisonofantimullerianhormoneandantralfolliclecountinthepredictionofovarianresponseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wuyanzhi comparisonofantimullerianhormoneandantralfolliclecountinthepredictionofovarianresponseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT songjiamei comparisonofantimullerianhormoneandantralfolliclecountinthepredictionofovarianresponseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chenjingsi comparisonofantimullerianhormoneandantralfolliclecountinthepredictionofovarianresponseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis