Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39069635›Full record

Trial reportHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2024

Women's interest, knowledge, and attitudes relating to anti-Mullerian hormone testing: a randomized controlled trial.

T Copp, T van Nieuwenhoven, K J McCaffery, K Hammarberg, E Cvejic, J Doust, S Lensen, M Peate, L Augustine, F van der Mee and 3 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

13 authors.

T CoppFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7801-5884
T van NieuwenhovenFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School of Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
K J McCafferyFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2696-5006
K HammarbergSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5988-5865
E CvejicFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
J DoustAustralian Women and Girls' Health Research Centre, School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4024-9308
S LensenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1694-1142
M PeateDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Women's Hospital, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
L AugustineFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
F van der MeeFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School of Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
B W MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
D LiebermanCity Fertility Centre Pty Ltd, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
J JansenFaculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, School of Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

Australian Health Research Alliance's Women's Health ResearchNHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellowship 2009419
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat is the impact of co-designed, evidence-based information regarding the anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test on women's interest in having the test? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women who viewed the evidence-based information about the AMH test had lower interest in having an AMH test than women who viewed information produced by an online company selling the test direct-to-consumers. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Online information about AMH testing often has unfounded claims about its ability to predict fertility and conception, and evidence suggests that women seek out and are recommended the AMH test as a measure of their fertility potential. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: An online randomized trial was conducted from November to December 2022. Women were randomized (double-blind, equal allocation) to view one of two types of information: co-designed, evidence-based information about the AMH test (intervention), or existing information about the AMH test from a website which markets the test direct-to-consumers (control). A total of 967 women were included in the final analysis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsParticipants were women recruited through an online panel, who were aged 25-40 years, living in Australia or The Netherlands, had never given birth, were not currently pregnant but would like to have a child now or in the future, and had never had an AMH test. The primary outcome was interest in having an AMH test (seven-point scale; 1 = definitely NOT interested to 7 = definitely interested). Secondary outcomes included attitudes, knowledge, and psychosocial and behavioural outcomes relating to AMH testing. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Women who viewed the evidence-based information about the AMH test had lower interest in having an AMH test (MD = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.83-1.30), less positive attitudes towards (MD = 1.29, 95% CI = 4.57-5.70), and higher knowledge about the test than women who viewed the control information (MD = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.71-0.82). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The sample was more highly educated than the broader Australian and Dutch populations and some measures (e.g. influence on family planning) were hypothetical in nature. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsWomen have higher knowledge of and lower interest in having the AMH test when given evidence-based information about the test and its limitations. Despite previous studies suggesting women are enthusiastic about AMH testing to learn about their fertility potential, we demonstrate that this enthusiasm does not hold when they are informed about the test's limitations. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This project was supported by an NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellowship (2009419) and the Australian Health Research Alliance's Women's Health Research, Translation and Impact Network EMCR award. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck and travel support from Merck. D.L. is the Medical Director of, and holds stock in, City Fertility NSW and reports consultancy for Organon and honoraria from Ferring, Besins, and Merck. K.H. reports consultancy and travel support from Merck and Organon. K.M. is a director of Health Literacy Solutions that owns a licence of the Sydney Health Literacy Lab Health Literacy Editor. No other relevant disclosures exist. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622001136796. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 17 August 2022. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT: 21 November 2022.

Indexed as

Anti-Mullerian HormoneHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAustraliaDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansOvarian ReserveAnti-Mullerian HormoneAMH testattitudesevidence-basedfertilityinformed decision-makingintentionknowledgeoverusepsychosocial outcomes

Identifiers

PMID39069635
PMCPMC11373312

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.