Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion

2020; Elsevier BV; Volume: 114; Issue: 6 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.09.134

1556-5653

Alan S. Penzias, Ricardo Azziz, K. Bendikson, Tommaso Falcone, Karl R. Hansen, Micah J. Hill, William W. Hurd, Sangita Jindal, Suleena Kansal Kalra, Jennifer Mersereau, Catherine Racowsky, Robert W. Rebar, Richard H. Reindollar, Chevis N. Shannon, Anne Z. Steiner, Dale W. Stovall, Cigdem Tanrikut, Hugh S. Taylor, Belinda J. Yauger,

Assisted Reproductive Technology and Twin Pregnancy

•Dynamic tests such as the CCCT do not improve test accuracy for predicting poor ovarian response, pregnancy after IVF, or unassisted conception over basal markers and, therefore, should be abandoned.•Currently, AMH and AFC are the most sensitive and reliable markers of ovarian reserve.•Combined ovarian reserve test models do not consistently improve predictive ability over that of single ovarian reserve tests.•Markers of ovarian reserve do not predict current reproductive potential among women with unproven fertility.•Results of ovarian reserve tests are not useful in predicting the likelihood of unassisted pregnancy in women with infertility, nor do they offer clinically meaningful improvements over already established pregnancy prediction models.•Markers of ovarian reserve do not appear to predict pregnancy after OS/IUI for unexplained infertility.•The ability of AMH and AFC to predict oocyte yield as well as poor and excessive ovarian responsiveness in IVF has been well demonstrated.•Extremely low AMH values should not be used to refuse treatment in IVF.•AMH and AFC have only a weak association with qualitative outcomes such as oocyte quality, clinical pregnancy rates, and live birth rates.•Poor ovarian response to maximal stimulation during IVF procedures reflects DOR, and further ovarian reserve testing is unnecessary.