Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27286817›Full record

ArticleJournal of translational medicine2016

Definition by FSH, AMH and embryo numbers of good-, intermediate- and poor-prognosis patients suggests previously unknown IVF outcome-determining factor associated with AMH.

Norbert Gleicher, Vitaly A Kushnir, Aritro Sen, Sarah K Darmon, Andrea Weghofer, Yan-Guang Wu, Qi Wang, Lin Zhang, David F Albertini, David H Barad

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Norbert GleicherThe Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA. ngleicher@thechr.com.
Vitaly A KushnirThe Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Aritro SenThe Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Sarah K DarmonThe Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Andrea WeghoferThe Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Yan-Guang WuThe Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Qi WangThe Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Lin ZhangThe Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
David F AlbertiniThe Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
David H BaradThe Center for Human Reproduction, 21 East 69th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Center for Human Reproduction · USAlbert Einstein College of Medicine · USUniversity of Rochester Medical Center · USWake Forest University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThough outcome models have been proposed previously, it is unknown whether cutoffs in clinical pregnancy and live birth rates at all ages are able to classify in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients into good-, intermediate- and poor prognosis.

methodsWe here in 3 infertile patient cohorts, involving 1247, 1514 and 632 women, built logistic regression models based on 3 functional ovarian reserve (FOR) parameters, including (1) number of good quality embryos, (2) follicle stimulating hormone (FSH, mIU/mL) and (3) anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH, ng/mL), determining whether clinical pregnancy and live birth rates can discriminate between good, intermediate and poor prognosis patients.

resultsAll models, indeed, allowed at all ages for separation by prognosis, though cut offs changed with age. In the embryo model, increasing embryo production resulted in linear improvement of IVF outcomes despite transfer of similar embryo numbers; in the FSH model outcomes and FSH levels related inversely, while the association of AMH followed a bell-shaped polynomial pattern, demonstrating "best" outcomes at mid-ranges. All 3 models demonstrated increasingly poor outcomes with advancing ages, though "best" AMH even above age 43 was still associated with unexpectedly good pregnancy and delivery outcomes. Excessively high AMH, in contrast, was at all ages associated with spiking miscarriage rates.

conclusionsAt varying peripheral serum concentrations, AMH, thus, demonstrates hithero unknown and contradictory effects on IVF outcomes, deserving at different concentrations investigation as a potential therapeutic agent, with pregnancy-supporting and pregnancy-interrupting properties.

Indexed as

Fertilization in VitroAdultAge FactorsAnti-Mullerian HormoneCohort StudiesDelivery, ObstetricEmbryo, MammalianFemaleFollicle Stimulating HormoneHumansModels, BiologicalPregnancyPrognosisTreatment OutcomeAnti-Mullerian HormoneFollicle Stimulating HormoneAnti-Müllerian hormone (AMH)Embryo numberFollicle stimulating hormone (FSH)In vitro fertilization (IVF)Live birth ratesPrediction modelsPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID27286817
PMCPMC4901433
OpenAlexW2411096195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.