Meta-analysis of poor ovarian response to ovarian hyperstimulation during IVF cycles predicted with bAFC
ZHANG Xiaoli1,ZHANG Xiaoxiao2, ZHENG Liping2, and MENG Ting3
1.Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2.Department of Information, the General Hospital of Chinese People’s Armed Police Force, Beijing 100039,China, 3.Health Team ,Shandong Corps of the Chinese People’s Armed Police Force, Jinan 250000, China
Abstract：Objective To conduct meta-analysis of bAFC prediction of poor ovarian response to ovarian hyperstimulation during IVF cycles.Methods According to inclusion and exclusion criteria, data on related studies of antral follicle count and poor ovarian response was collected via electronic databases. A total of eleven pieces of literature involving 11425 patients were included and meta-analysis was made with RevMan5.2 software.Results Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis. The Results showed that along with the increase of bAFC, the number of oocytes obtained became larger. bAFC had a direct effect on the number of oocytes retrieved and the amount of gonadotropin (Gn) used.Conclusions Meta-analysis suggests that bAFC can serve both as a predictor of poor ovarian response to ovarian hyperstimulation during IVF cycles and as an independent indicator of surveillance.
Ferraretti A P,Goossens V,Moouzon J,et al. Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2008: results generated from European registers by ESHRE[J]. Human reproduction (Oxford, England),2012,27(9):2571-2584.
Lamarca A, Papaleo E, Grisendi V, et al. Development of a nomogram based on markers of ovarian reserve for the individualisationof the follicle-stimulating hormone starting dose in in vitrofertilisation cycles[J]. BJOG, 2012, 119(10):1171-1179.
[5]
Yovich J, Stanger J, Hinchliffe P. Targeted gonadotrophin stimulation usingthe PIVET algorithm markedly reduces the risk of OHSS[J]. Reprod Biomed Online, 2012, 24(3):281-92.
Oner G, Muderris. I I. Assessment of ovarian reserve based on hormonal parameters, ovarian volume, and antral follicle count in women with familial Mediterranean fever[J]. Eur J Obstet gynecol Reprod Biol, 2013, 170(2): 449-451.
[9]
Panchal S, Nagori C. Comparison of anti-mullerian hormone and antral follicle count for assessment ofovarian reserve[J]. J Hum Reprod Sci,2012, 5(3): 274-278.
[10]
Ferraretti A P,Marca A, Fauser B C, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria[J]. Hum Reprod, 2011, 26(7):1616-1624.
[11]
Chang M Y, Chang C H. Useof the antral follicle count to predict the outcome of assisted reproductive technologies[J]. Fertil Steril, 1998, 69(3):505-510.
[12]
Dave J,Hendriks. Ultrasonography as a tool for the prediction of outcome in IVF patients: a comparative meta-analysis of ovarian volume and antral follicle count[J]. Fertil Steril, 2007, 87(4):764 -775.
[13]
Frattarelli J L, Levi A J, Miller B T, et al. A prospective assessment of the predictive value of basal antral follicles in in vitro fertilization cycles[J]. Fertil Steril, 2003, 80(2):350-355.
[14]
Nelson S M. Biomarkers of ovarian response: current and future applications[J]. Fertil Steril, 2013, 99(4):963-969.
2017, Vol. 28 
