ArticleHuman reproduction open2026
Does endometrioma diameter impact serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Human reproduction open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
study questionIs endometrioma diameter associated with ovarian reserve, as reflected by serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels, in women of reproductive age with no history of ovarian surgery? SUMMARY ANSWER: Across 30 independent cohorts, endometrioma diameter showed no independent association with serum AMH levels when modeled either continuously or categorically, indicating that cyst size is unlikely to be a principal determinant of diminished ovarian reserve in non-operated endometrioma. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The extent to which endometrioma diameter contributes to ovarian reserve impairment remains uncertain and has historically informed size-based thresholds for surgical intervention. Whether larger cysts exert a greater deleterious effect on ovarian reserve remains debated. Observational studies in women without prior ovarian surgery have reported inconsistent and often contradictory findings. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published in English between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2025. Searches were conducted in PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EBSCOhost. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING
methodsEligible studies compared serum AMH across different endometrioma diameters within the same population and setting in reproductive-age women with non-operated endometrioma. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using ROBINS-I. The primary inferential analysis was a cohort-level multivariable random-effects meta-regression based on 30 independent, non-overlapping cohorts derived from 16 studies, adjusting for age. Diameter was modeled both as a continuous predictor and as prespecified strata (<4 cm, 4-5 cm, 5-6 cm, >6 cm). Supportive exploratory threshold and subgroup analyses (predefined cut-offs 3-8 cm) were interpreted with multiplicity control using the Holm-Bonferroni sequentially rejective procedure. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Sixteen studies, including 1484 women, met the inclusion criteria, and 30 independent cohorts were used in the primary analysis. Endometrioma diameter was not a significant predictor of serum AMH when modeled continuously ( LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The analysis was restricted to non-operated endometriomas; therefore, the relationship between preoperative diameter and post-surgical AMH decline could not be assessed. Residual confounding is possible given the observational nature of the included studies and variation in measurement and laboratory methods. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE
findingsIn women with non-operated endometrioma, ovarian reserve impairment, when present, appears largely independent of cyst diameter, arguing against a predominant 'mass effect' as the principal mechanism. These findings support clinical counseling and management strategies that do not rely on cyst size alone when considering infertility care, delayed childbearing, and fertility preservation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding was received for the conduct of this study. The authors declare no competing interests. REGISTRATION NUMBER: Prospectively registered at PROSPERO under number CRD42025632149 on 28 December 2024.
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.