CRA no CI FSH ≥ 40IU/L: 78% practice) reported Inhibin B ≤ 5pg/ml: 54% Specificity of Specificity AMH ≤25 pg/mL Specificities Not important n=56 0 NA -1 -1 No ⨁⨀⨀⨀ AMH compared 60%. comparators: (unknown k=1 Low risk No evidence Only Very low to other ovarian how to use of bias of incremental one AFC (total 2–10 mm) quality Case series reserve tests in this evidence value of AMH small <1: 89% distinguishing in clinical was provided study, FSH ≥40IU/L: 64% CRA practice) no CI Inhibin B ≤ 5pg/ml: 64% reported Correlation n=98 0 0 -1 -1 No AMH Gen II ELISA versus NA Important ⨁⨀⨀⨀ between k=2 Low risk No evidence Low Ansh Labs AMH ELISA: Very low (to know if different AMH of bias of incremental number rho=0.964, p<0.0001 different quality Case series tests value of AMH of AMH assays AMH Gen II ELISA versus was provided patients are Ultrasensitive AMH ELISA: included comparable) rho=0.92, p<0.001 AMH Gen II ELISA vs ELISA: rho=0.92, p<0.001 Ultrasensitive AMH ELISA vs pico-AMH ELISA: rho = 0.99, p<0.001 Concordance n=53 0 NA -1 -1 No The overall, positive and See results for AMH Not important ⨁⨀⨀⨀ between AMH negative per cent agreements testing’ column (unknown k=1 Low risk No evidence Low Very low and FSH between low AMH and high how to use of bias of incremental number quality Case series FSH levels were 77.4%, 57.1% this evidence value of AMH of and 67.6%, respectively. in clinical was provided patients practice) only one
CRA no CI reported FSH ≥ 40IU/L: 78% Inhibin B ≤ 5pg/ml: 54% practice) Specificity of AMH compared to other ovarian reserve tests in distinguishing CRA n=56 k=1 Case series 0 Low risk of bias NA -1 No evidence of incremental value of AMH was provided -1 Only one small study, no CI reported No Specificity AMH ≤25 pg/mL 60%. Specificities comparators: AFC (total 2–10 mm) <1: 89% FSH ≥40IU/L: 64% Inhibin B ≤ 5pg/ml: 64% ⨁⨀⨀⨀ Very low quality Not important (unknown how to use this evidence in clinical practice) Correlation between different AMH tests n=98 k=2 Case series 0 Low risk of bias 0 -1 No evidence of incremental value of AMH was provided -1 Low number of patients included No AMH Gen II ELISA versus Ansh Labs AMH ELISA: rho=0.964, p<0.0001 AMH Gen II ELISA versus Ultrasensitive AMH ELISA: rho=0.92, p<0.001 AMH Gen II ELISA vs ELISA: rho=0.92, p<0.001 Ultrasensitive AMH ELISA vs pico-AMH ELISA: rho = 0.99, p<0.001 NA ⨁⨀⨀⨀ Very low quality Important (to know if different AMH assays are comparable) Concordance between AMH and FSH n=53 k=1 Case series 0 Low risk of bias NA -1 No evidence of incremental value of AMH was provided -1 Low number of patients only one No The overall, positive and negative per cent agreements between low AMH and high FSH levels were 77.4%, 57.1% and 67.6%, respectively. See results for AMH testing’ column ⨁⨀⨀⨀ Very low quality Not important (unknown how to use this evidence in clinical practice)
1434-Assessment_Report-Accessible.docx