Corrigendum to “Multicenter analytical performance evaluation of a fully automated anti-Müllerian hormone assay and reference interval determination” [Clin. Biochem. 49 (2016) 260–267]

Anckaert, Ellen; Öktem, M.; Thies, A.; Cohen-Bacrie, M.; Daan, Nadine M.P.; Schiettecatte, Johan; Müller, Christian; Topçu, Deniz İlhan; Gröning, A.; Ternaux, F; Engel, Christine; Engelmann, S.; Milczynski, Christoph

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2019.11.007

Cited by 2 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The bias between the Beckman-Coulter platforms (Gen II assay and Access AMH Assay) and the Elecsys AMH Immunoassay was uniform across the whole range of values studied. The finding concurred with previous reports, although the Elecsys AMH Immunoassay was claimed to be standardized against the Gen II assay (53)(54)(55)(56)(57). This differential calibration should be kept in mind when results generated by the different assay methods are interpreted or compared in clinical practice or research settings.…”

Section: Evolution Of Amh Assay Methodssupporting

confidence: 89%

Challenges in Measuring AMH in the Clinical Setting

Robertson

Burns

et al. 2021

Front. Endocrinol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Serum anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) is a widely used marker of functional ovarian reserve in the assessment and treatment of infertility. It is used to determine dosing of gonadotropins used for superovulation prior to in vitro fertilization, as well as to determine the degree of damage to ovarian reserve by cytotoxic treatments such as chemotherapy. AMH is also now used to predict proximity to menopause and potentially provides a sensitive and specific test for polycystic ovarian syndrome. Twenty one different AMH immunoassay platforms/methods are now commercially available. Of those compared, the random-access platforms are the most reliable. However, to date there has not been an agreed common international AMH reference preparation to standardize calibration between the various immunoassays. Recently, a purified human AMH preparation (code 16/190) has been investigated by the World Health Organization as a potential international reference preparation. However, this was only partially successful as commutability between it and serum samples was observed only in some but not all immunoassay methods. Development of a second generation reference preparation with wider commutability is proposed.

show abstract

Section: Evolution Of Amh Assay Methodssupporting

confidence: 89%

Challenges in Measuring AMH in the Clinical Setting

Robertson

Burns

et al. 2021

Front. Endocrinol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(10th, 50th and 90th percentiles) 20 and Anckaert et al. (2.5th, 5th, 50th, 95th and 97.5th percentiles) 21 . The proportion of women with endometriosis under the Anckaert 50th percentile was significantly higher than controls.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 80%

“… Note : Percentage of women in our cohort with endometriosis, as compared to healthy controls, with anti‐Mullerian hormone levels under the respective percentiles as determined by Han et al 20 . and Anckaert et al 21 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…We then compared percentages of women with AMH levels under respective AMH percentiles as per Han et al 20 . who reported the 10th, 50th and 90th percentiles and as per Anckaert et al 21 . who reported the 2.5th, 5th, 50th, 95th and 97.5th percentiles.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…who reported the 2.5th, 5th, 50th, 95th and 97.5th percentiles. Of note, Anckaert et al 21 . published a table of measured AMH values in healthy women with regular menstrual cycle aged 20–50 years, divided according to the percentiles as above.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ovarian reserve markers of women with superficial endometriosis

Lessans,

Gilan,

Dick

et al. 2023

Intl J Gynecology & Obste

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveEndometriosis affects up to 10% of reproductive age women and is associated with pelvic pain and subfertility. While previous studies have shown an association between deep and ovarian endometriosis to reduced ovarian reserve, there is no data on the effect of superficial endometriosis on ovarian reserve markers. Hence, we aimed to compare ovarian reserve markers of women with superficial endometriosis to that of women without endometriosis.MethodsThis was a case control study in a tertiary medical center. The study group included women aged 18–40 with surgically and histopathology‐proven superficial endometriosis with no deep lesions or ovarian involvement. The control group included women with no known or suspected endometriosis and was matched to the study group by age, BMI and parity. We excluded women with other known risk factors for ovarian failure and with other gynecological disorders. Participants completed a questionnaire with demographic, medical and gynecological data. Each patient underwent anti‐Mullerian hormone (AMH) testing and an ultrasound to assess their antral follicular count (AFC). AMH and AFC were then compared between groups.ResultsA total of 124 women participated in the study. Of these, 50% (n = 62) had surgically proven superficial endometriosis and 50% (n = 62) were without known or suspected endometriosis. Mean AMH levels of women with and without superficial endometriosis was 3.0 ± 2.8 ng/mL and 2.8 ± 1.9 ng/mL, respectively (P = 0.71). AFC also did not differ between groups (women with superficial endometriosis: 12.0 ± 6.6; women without endometriosis: 10.2 ± 5.0, P = 0.15).ConclusionsIn our cohort, superficial endometriosis was not associated with diminished ovarian reserve. While further studies are needed, to date, it does not appear to be justified to assess ovarian reserve for patients with superficial endometriosis.

show abstract

Corrigendum to “Multicenter analytical performance evaluation of a fully automated anti-Müllerian hormone assay and reference interval determination” [Clin. Biochem. 49 (2016) 260–267]

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Challenges in Measuring AMH in the Clinical Setting

Challenges in Measuring AMH in the Clinical Setting

Ovarian reserve markers of women with superficial endometriosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About