SynthesisSystematic reviews2024
The best ovarian reserve marker to predict ovarian response following controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ovarian ageing: from biological constraint to emerging therapeutic frontier.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Review
- SDF-1 Attenuates Oocyte Quality Decline During Reproductive Aging Through Autophagy-Enhanced Stress Granule Scavenging.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Evaluating the role of follicular output rate in clinical and embryological outcomes in IVF: a prospective study.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Article
- Anti-Müllerian hormone versus antral follicle count as first-choice biomarkers in a low-resource setting: A cross-sectional study in Kumasi, Ghana.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Follicular fluid SCUBE1 as a novel angiogenesis-associated biomarker in women undergoing ART: a pilot study reflecting the follicular vascular microenvironment.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2026Article
- Endometriosis and Fertility: A Practical Guide: Results of the Working Group of the Weissensee 2025 Workshop of the Scientific Endometriosis Foundation.Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde · 2026Article
- Comparison of the effects of total laparoscopic hysterectomy and total abdominal hysterectomy on ovarian reserve and sexual function: a non-randomised prospective study.BMC women's health · 2026Article
- A Two-Hit Hypothesis for Chemotherapy-Induced Primary Ovarian Insufficiency in Asian Populations: A Population-Specific Mechanistic Framework Linking Genetic Susceptibility and Cytotoxic Stress via the PI3K-AKT-FOXO3 Axis.BioMed research international · 2026Review
- TransrectalFrontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a clinical prediction model for poor ovarian response in assisted reproductive technology.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- A Comparative Study of the Effect of Novel Dual Trigger and Delayed HCG With Dual Trigger in Poor Responder Poseidon Group 4 Patients in Antagonist IVF Cycles.Advanced biomedical research · 2026Article
- Follicular sphericity based on three-dimensional transvaginal ultrasound algorithms predicts ovarian responsiveness to in vitro fertilization.Journal of ovarian research · 2025Observational
- Fibroblast Activation Protein (FAP) as a Serum Biomarker for Fibrotic Ovarian Aging: A Clinical Validation Study Based on Translational Transcriptomic Targets.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
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
backgroundOne of the most challenging aspects of treating patients facing primary ovarian insufficiency, especially those eligible for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH), is the assessment of ovarian function and response to stimulatory protocols in terms of the number of oocytes retrieved. The lack of consistency between studies regarding the best parameter for response evaluation necessitates a comprehensive statistical analysis of the most commonly utilized ovarian reserve markers (ORM). This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to establish the optimal metric for assessing ovarian reserve among COH candidates.
methodsThe PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science databases were searched until July 2024, with no date or language limitations. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate the validity of anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH), antral follicle count (AFC), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), and estradiol (E2) in patients receiving controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Studies on the diagnostic accuracy of ovarian reserve markers in predicting ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in assisted reproduction technology (ART) candidates were reviewed. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was determined using the Der Simonian-Laird random effects model meta-analysis to assess the likelihood of detecting low or high ovarian responses in COH candidates. Cochran's Q, and I-squared, were used to analyze between-study heterogeneity.
resultsThis systematic review and meta-analysis included 26 studies including 17 cohorts, 4 case controls, and 5 cross-sectional studies. AFC and AMH demonstrated significant diagnostic performance compared to FSH and E2 in poor and high response category. AMH slightly outperformed AMH and had the highest logarithm of DOR for detecting poor [2.68 (95% CI 1.90, 3.45)] and high ovarian response [2.76 (95% CI 1.57, 3.95)]. However, it showed a high between-study heterogeneity (I
conclusionsAFC and AMH were the most accurate predictors of poor and high ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. However, further research is needed to develop models assessing the combined impact of AMH and AFC on ovarian response prediction. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021245380.
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.