Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of anti-mullerian hormone for testing ovarian reserve: a survey of 796 infertility clinics worldwide

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study is to assess how anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) is used worldwide to test ovarian reserve and guide in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle management.

Methods

An internet-based survey was sent electronically to registered IVF providers within the IVF-Worldwide.com network. This survey consisted of nine questions which assessed the clinics’ use of AMH. The questionnaire was completed online through the IVF-Worldwide.com website, and quality assurance tools were used to verify that only one survey was completed per clinical IVF center. Results are reported as the proportion of IVF cycles represented by a particular answer choice.

Results

Survey responses were completed from 796 globally distributed IVF clinics, representing 593,200 IVF cycles worldwide. Sixty percent of the respondent-IVF cycles reported to use AMH as a first line test, and 54 % reported it as the best test for evaluating ovarian reserve. Eighty-nine percent reported that AMH results were extremely relevant or relevant to clinical practice. However in contrast, for predicting live birth rate, 81 % reported age as the best predictor.

Conclusions

AMH is currently considered a first line test for evaluating ovarian reserve and is considered relevant to clinical practice by the majority of IVF providers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig 1
Fig 2
Fig 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril, 2015. 103(3): p. e9-e17.

  2. Ferraretti AP, Gianaroli L. The Bologna criteria for the definition of poor ovarian responders: is there a need for revision? Hum Reprod. 2014;29(9):1842–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Gianaroli L et al. Best practices of ASRM and ESHRE: a journey through reproductive medicine. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(6):1380–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Seifer DB, Maclaughlin DT. Mullerian inhibiting substance is an ovarian growth factor of emerging clinical significance. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(3):539–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee MM, Donahoe PK. Mullerian inhibiting substance: a gonadal hormone with multiple functions. Endocr Rev. 1993;14(2):152–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rajpert-De Meyts E et al. Expression of anti-Mullerian hormone during normal and pathological gonadal development: association with differentiation of Sertoli and granulosa cells. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1999;84(10):3836–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Broer SL et al. Anti-mullerian hormone predicts menopause: a long-term follow-up study in normoovulatory women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2011;96(8):2532–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hansen KR et al. Correlation of ovarian reserve tests with histologically determined primordial follicle number. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(1):170–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. van Disseldorp J et al. Comparison of inter- and intra-cycle variability of anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle counts. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(1):221–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hendriks DJ et al. Antral follicle count in the prediction of poor ovarian response and pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis and comparison with basal follicle-stimulating hormone level. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(2):291–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Broer SL et al. The role of antimullerian hormone in prediction of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(3):705–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Van Voorhis BJ et al. What do consistently high-performing in vitro fertilization programs in the U.S. do? Fertil Steril. 2010;94(4):1346–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Maheshwari A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. A survey of clinicians’ views on age and access to IVF and the use of tests of ovarian reserve prior to IVF in the United Kingdom. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2008;11(1):23–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Vaisbuch E, Leong M, Shoham Z. Progesterone support in IVF: is evidence-based medicine translated to clinical practice? A worldwide web-based survey. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;25(2):139–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Barnhart K, Osheroff J. Follicle stimulating hormone as a predictor of fertility. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 1998;10(3):227–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Broekmans FJ et al. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12(6):685–718.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Esposito MA, Coutifaris C, Barnhart KT. A moderately elevated day 3 FSH concentration has limited predictive value, especially in younger women. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(1):118–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eldar-Geva T et al. Dynamic assays of inhibin B, anti-Mullerian hormone and estradiol following FSH stimulation and ovarian ultrasonography as predictors of IVF outcome. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(11):3178–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nardo LG et al. Circulating basal anti-Mullerian hormone levels as predictor of ovarian response in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(5):1586–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. La Marca A et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(2):113–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Singer T et al. Correlation of antimullerian hormone and baseline follicle-stimulating hormone levels. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(6):2616–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Broer SL et al. The role of anti-Mullerian hormone assessment in assisted reproductive technology outcome. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010;22(3):193–201.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Nelson SM, Yates RW, Fleming R. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone and FSH: prediction of live birth and extremes of response in stimulated cycles—implications for individualization of therapy. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(9):2414–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Smeenk JM et al. Antimullerian hormone predicts ovarian responsiveness, but not embryo quality or pregnancy, after in vitro fertilization or intracyoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(1):223–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tal R et al. Antimullerian hormone as predictor of implantation and clinical pregnancy after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;103(1):119–30. e3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Iliodromiti S et al. The predictive accuracy of anti-Mullerian hormone for live birth after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(4):560–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schipper I et al. Limitations and pitfalls of antimullerian hormone measurements. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(4):823–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Broer SL et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone: ovarian reserve testing and its potential clinical implications. Hum Reprod Update. 2014;20(5):688–701.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Nelson SM, La Marca A. The journey from the old to the new AMH assay: how to avoid getting lost in the values. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23(4):411–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Freour T et al. Measurement of serum anti-mullerian hormone by Beckman coulter ELISA and DSL ELISA: comparison and relevance in assisted reproduction technology (ART). Clin Chim Acta. 2007;375(1-2):162–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rustamov O et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone: poor assay reproducibility in a large cohort of subjects suggests sample instability. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(10):3085–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Zuvela E, Walls M, Matson P. Within-laboratory and between-laboratory variability in the measurement of anti-mullerian hormone determined within an external quality assurance scheme. Reprod Biol. 2013;13(3):255–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the IVF-Worldwide.com network of providers for their participation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Womack Army Medical Center, Fort Bragg, NC, USA

    Kyle J. Tobler

  2. Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel

    Gon Shoham

  3. Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Mindy S. Christianson & Yulian Zhao

  4. The Women’s Clinic, Hong Kong, SAR, China

    Milton Leong

  5. Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel

    Zeev Shoham

  6. Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel

    Zeev Shoham

Authors
  1. Kyle J. Tobler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gon Shoham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mindy S. Christianson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yulian Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Milton Leong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zeev Shoham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyle J. Tobler.

Additional information

Capsule

The majority of respondents from a globally distributed survey representing 796 IVF clinics and 593,200 IVF cycles considered antimullerian hormone as a first line metric for evaluating ovarian reserve and managing ovarian hyperstimulation protocols for IVF.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tobler, K.J., Shoham, G., Christianson, M.S. et al. Use of anti-mullerian hormone for testing ovarian reserve: a survey of 796 infertility clinics worldwide. J Assist Reprod Genet 32, 1441–1448 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0562-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0562-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation