ReviewHealth science reports2026
Association of Ethnicity With Ovarian Reserve: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Health science reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Ovarian reserve markers are reported to differ across ethnic groups, though the sources of this variation are unclear. We aimed to document this variation and examine the environmental, nutritional, and sociocultural factors that may explain it. Methods: Observational studies were included if they enrolled women aged 18-45 and reported ovarian reserve markers (AMH, AFC, or FSH) stratified by an explicitly defined ethnicity classification. Four databases were searched. Risk of bias was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. A random-effects meta-analysis estimated standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and prediction intervals; heterogeneity was assessed with τ Results: Ten studies (10,349 women, nine countries) were included in the narrative synthesis; six contributed to the AMH meta-analysis and two to the exploratory FSH analysis. Most studies (7/10) had a low risk of bias. Individually, most studies reported higher ovarian reserve markers in White European women than in women of Middle Eastern, South Asian, or some Latin American or African descent. The pooled estimates for Asian versus European women were not statistically significant and were accompanied by extreme heterogeneity: AMH (6 studies: SMD -0.68, 95% CI -1.84 to 0.48; Conclusion: The consistent, clinically relevant finding here is qualitative: individual studies repeatedly report lower ovarian reserve markers outside White European populations, most plausibly reflecting environmental, nutritional, and socioeconomic exposures rather than fixed biology. The pooled estimates are exploratory given the small number of studies and near-total heterogeneity, and should not be over-interpreted. Population-specific AMH reference ranges, informed by studies that rigorously adjust for these confounders, are needed for equitable clinical decision-making. Trial Registration: PROSPERO Registration: CRD420251026342.
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.