Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37309652›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2023

Community awareness and use of anti-Müllerian hormone testing in Australia: a population survey of women.

Tessa Copp, Rachel Thompson, Jenny Doust, Karin Hammarberg, Michelle Peate, Sarah Lensen, Erin Cvejic, Devora Lieberman, Ben W Mol, Kirsten J McCaffery

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Tessa CoppFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7801-5884
Rachel ThompsonFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Health Sciences, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2976-9078
Jenny DoustCentre of Longitudinal and Life Course Research, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4024-9308
Karin HammarbergSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5988-5865
Michelle PeateDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2903-4688
Sarah LensenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1694-1142
Erin CvejicFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6043-6071
Devora LiebermanCity Fertility Centre Pty Ltd, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ben W MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8337-550X
Kirsten J McCafferyFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2696-5006
The University of Sydney · AURoyal Women's Hospital · AUMonash University · AUThe University of Queensland · AUUniversity of Aberdeen · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat is the anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test usage, awareness, and perceived reasons for testing in a representative community sample of women in Australia? SUMMARY ANSWER: : Among women aged 18-55 years, 13% had heard about AMH testing and 7% had had an AMH test, with the top three reasons for testing including due to infertility investigations (51%), considering pregnancy and wanting to understand their chances (19%) or to find out if a medical condition had affected fertility (11%). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The growing availability of direct-to-consumer AMH testing has raised concerns about overuse, however as most AMH tests are paid for privately by consumers, data on test usage is not publicly available. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: National cross-sectional survey of 1773 women, conducted in January 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsFemales aged 18-55 years were recruited from the representative 'Life in Australia' probability-based population panel and completed the survey online or by telephone. Main outcome measures included if and how participants had heard about AMH testing, whether they had ever had an AMH test, main reason for testing and test access. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 2423 women who were invited 1773 responded (73% response rate). Of these, 229 (13%) had heard about AMH testing and 124 (7%) had had an AMH test. Testing rates were highest among those currently aged 35-39 years (14%) and associated with educational attainment. Almost all accessed the test through their general practitioner or fertility specialist. Reasons for testing were: part of an infertility investigation (51%), considering pregnancy and wanting to understand chances of conceiving (19%), finding out if a medical condition had affected fertility (11%), curiosity (9%), considering egg freezing (5%), and considering delaying pregnancy (2%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although the sample was large and mostly representative, it was over-represented by people holding a university degree and under-represented by people aged 18-24, however, we used weighted data where possible to account for this. All data were self-reported so there is a risk of recall bias. The number of survey items was also restricted, so the type of counselling women received prior to testing, reasons for declining an AMH test or test timing were not measured. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsWhilst most women reported having an AMH test for appropriate reasons, about one third had it for reasons not supported by evidence. Public and clinician education about the lack of utility of AMH testing for women not undergoing infertility treatment is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This project was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre for Research Excellence grant (1104136) and Program grant (1113532). T.C. is supported by an NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellowship (2009419). B.W.M. reports research funding, consultancy and travel support from Merck. D.L. is the Medical Director of City Fertility NSW and reports consultancy for Organon, Ferring, Besins and Merck. The authors have no other competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Indexed as

Anti-Mullerian HormoneInfertilityCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFertilityHumansPregnancyProbabilityAnti-Mullerian Hormoneanti-Mullerian hormonecryopreservationfamily planningfertilityinfertilitymenopause

Identifiers

PMID37309652
PMCPMC10391311
OpenAlexW4380423304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.