The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research · 2023
Anti-Müllerian hormone for screening, diagnosis, evaluation, and prediction: A systematic review and expert opinions.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Iwase Akira, Asada Yoshimasa, Sugishita Yodo, Osuka Satoko, Kitajima Michio, Kawamura Kazuhiro, from the subcommittee “Survey of AMH measurement in Japan” in Reproductive Endocrinology Committee, Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2021-2022
Аннотация
AIM: To present evidence-based recommendations for anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) measurement as an ovarian reserve test.
METHODS: A systematic literature search for the clinical utility of AMH was conducted in PubMed from its inception to August 2022 to identify studies, including meta-analyses, reviews, randomized controlled trials, and clinical trials, followed by an additional systematic search using keywords. Based on this evidence, an expert panel developed clinical questions (CQs).
RESULTS: A total of 1895 studies were identified and 95 articles were included to establish expert opinions subdivided into general population, infertility treatment, primary ovarian insufficiency, polycystic ovary syndrome, surgery, and oncofertility. We developed 13 CQs and 1 future research question with levels of evidence and recommendations.
CONCLUSION: The findings of the current systematic review covered the clinical utility of AMH including its screening, diagnosis, evaluation, and prediction. Although some clinical implications of AMH remain debatable, these expert opinions may help promote a better understanding of AMH and establish its clinical significance.
METHODS: A systematic literature search for the clinical utility of AMH was conducted in PubMed from its inception to August 2022 to identify studies, including meta-analyses, reviews, randomized controlled trials, and clinical trials, followed by an additional systematic search using keywords. Based on this evidence, an expert panel developed clinical questions (CQs).
RESULTS: A total of 1895 studies were identified and 95 articles were included to establish expert opinions subdivided into general population, infertility treatment, primary ovarian insufficiency, polycystic ovary syndrome, surgery, and oncofertility. We developed 13 CQs and 1 future research question with levels of evidence and recommendations.
CONCLUSION: The findings of the current systematic review covered the clinical utility of AMH including its screening, diagnosis, evaluation, and prediction. Although some clinical implications of AMH remain debatable, these expert opinions may help promote a better understanding of AMH and establish its clinical significance.