ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Ovarian reserve does not influence natural conception: insights from infertile women.
Article in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Radioactive iodine effects on ovarian reserve: a systematic review and metaanalysis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Pooled it
- Ovarian damage following surgery for endometriomas, 20 years later: did awareness improve the situation?Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2025Article
- Risk of endometriosis progression in infertile women trying to conceive naturally or using IVF.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2025Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere is several albeit not univocal evidence suggesting that ovarian reserve is not related to the chance of natural pregnancy, provided that the remnant follicular pool is sufficient to ensure regular menstrual cycles. Nevertheless, available studies have some methodological limitations, and the issue cannot be considered definitively ascertained.
methodsTo further address this issue, we retrospectively selected infertile women whose infertility diagnostic work-up was unremarkable (unexplained infertility-cases) and matched them by age and study period to a group of infertile women who were diagnosed with severe male infertility (controls). If ovarian reserve impacts on natural fertility, one had to expect lower ovarian reserve among women with unexplained infertility. Tested biomarkers included AMH, AFC and day 2-3 serum FSH. The primary aim was the frequency of women with serum AMH < 0.7 ng/ml.
resultsTwo-hundred fifty-two women with unexplained infertility and 252 women with male infertility were included. All biomarkers of ovarian reserve did not differ between the study groups. AMH levels < 0.7 ng/mL were observed in 26 (10%) women with unexplained infertility and 35 (14%) women with male infertility (p = 0.28). The adjusted OR was 0.76 (95% CI: 0.44-1.33). Significant differences did not also emerge when repeating this dichotomous analysis using other biomarkers and other thresholds for the definition of low-ovarian reserve.
conclusionThis study confirms that ovarian reserve is unremarkable to natural conception. Physicians and patients should be aware of this concept to avoid inappropriate counseling and undue clinical decisions.
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.