SynthesisJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2020
Navigating the body of literature assessing BRCA1/2 mutations and markers of ovarian function: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reproductive Challenges in Mutated BRCA Gene Carriers: A Narrative Review.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Fertility Preservation for Patients with Malignant Disease. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/082, May 2025).Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2026Article
- The Impact of BRCA1- and BRCA2 Mutations on Ovarian Reserve Status.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2023Article
- Age of natural menopause onset inPrzeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTwelve percent of women in the USA will develop invasive breast cancer in their lifetime, and that risk increases to 80% if they carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. BRCA1/2 mutations are thought to potentially affect ovarian reserve and/or fertility.
methodsPubMed and PubMed Central were searched for publications on ovarian reserve-related outcomes (i.e., AMH and response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocols) that were reported in relation to BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutations from 1950 through May 2019. A meta-analysis was conducted to create forest plots and summary effect measures using Review Manager 5.3.
resultsThis article reviews the 16 qualifying publications. There were several fundamental methodological differences in the study designs and outcome details reported in AMH studies. Summary statistics found no difference in AMH levels between BRCA1/2+ women as compared with controls (Z overall test effects p ≥ 0.45). Regarding responses to COH, there were overall non-significantly fewer total and mature numbers of oocytes retrieved in BRCA1/2+ cases as compared with controls (meta-analysis Z overall test effects p ≥ 0.40).
conclusionsWhile the summary measures indicate no significant differences in AMH levels between BRCA1/2+ cases and controls, readers should be aware that there are significant methodological differences in the AMH reports. Additionally, the response to COH protocols does not seem to be significantly lower in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers in the existing literature. Continued research on both of these clinical parameters would be beneficial for patient counseling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.