Trial reportReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2022
Evaluation of at-home serum anti-Müllerian hormone testing: a head-to-head comparison study.
Trial report in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04784325 (AMH^2), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
AMH^2: Anti-Müllerian Hormone - At My Home
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Alzheimer's Disease Biomarkers Measured by Capillary Blood Collection Versus Venous Plasma and Cerebrospinal Fluid.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2026Article
- Measuring associations between hormonal entropy, the prevalence of vasomotor symptoms, and menstrual dynamics.American journal of physiology. Endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Article
- Using a Composite Summary of Daily Sex Hormones to Gauge Time Until Menopause: A Focus on Pregnanediol Glucuronide (PDG).The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a Simplified Upper Arm Device for Vacuum-Assisted Collection of Capillary Blood Specimens.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Standardization of Microsampling Technologies for Accurate Sensing and Reliable Diagnostics.ACS sensors · 2025Review
- Capillary blood stability and analytical accuracy of 12 analytes stored in Microtainers®.Practical laboratory medicine · 2023Article
- Painless Capillary Blood Collection: A Rapid Evaluation of the Onflow Device.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor optimal fertility testing, serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels are used in combination with other testing to provide reliable ovarian reserve evaluations. The use of the ADx 100 card is widely commercially available for at-home reproductive hormone testing, but data demonstrating that its results are reproducible outside of a clinical setting are limited, as well as comparisons of its performance with other newer blood collection techniques. This study aimed to evaluate the concordance of serum AMH levels found via standard venipuncture and self-administered blood collection using the TAP II device (TAP) and ADx card in women of reproductive age.
methodsThis was a prospective, head-to-head-to-head within-person crossover comparison trial that included 41 women of reproductive age (20-39 years). It was hypothesized that the TAP device would be superior to the ADx card both in terms of agreement with venipuncture reference standard and patient experience. Each subject had their blood drawn using the three modalities (TAP, ADx, and venipuncture). We evaluated the concordance of AMH assays from samples obtained via the TAP device and ADx card with the gold standard being venipuncture. Two-sided 95% CIs were generated for each method to compare relative performance across all three modes. Patient preference for the TAP device versus the ADx card was based on self-reported pain and Net Promoter Score (NPS).
resultsThe TAP device was superior to the ADx card on all outcome measures. TAP R-squared with venipuncture was 0.99 (95% CI 0.99, > 0.99), significantly higher than the ADx card, which had an R-squared of 0.87 (95% CI 0.80, 0.94) under most favorable treatment. TAP sensitivity and specificity were both 100% (no clinical disagreement with venipuncture), versus 100 and 88%, respectively, for the ADx card. Average pain reported by users of the TAP device was significantly lower than the ADx card (0.75 versus 2.73, p < 0.01) and the NPS was significantly higher than the ADx card (+ 72 versus - 48, p < 0.01).
conclusionsThe TAP was non-inferior to venipuncture and superior to the ADx card with respect to correlation and false positives. Moreover, the TAP was superior to both alternatives on patient experience.
trial registrationNCT04784325 (Mar 5, 2021).
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.