Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Antral follicle count determines poor ovarian response better than anti-müllerian hormone but age is the only predictor for live birth in in vitro fertilization cycles

  • ASSISTED REPRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the predictive value of serum anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) concentrations and antral follicle counts (AFC), on ovarian response and live birth rates after IVF and compare with age and basal FSH.

Methods

Basal levels of AMH, FSH and antral follicle count were measured in 192 patients prior to IVF treatment. The predictive value of these parameters were evaluated in terms of retrieved oocyte number and live birth rates.

Results

Poor responders in IVF were older, had lower AFC and AMH but higher basal FSH levels. In multivariate analysis AFC was the best and only independent parameter among other parameters and AMH was better than age and basal FSH to predict poor response to ovarian stimulation. Addition of AMH, basal FSH, age and total gonadotropin dose to AFC did not improve its prognostic reliability. Area under curve (AUC) for each parameter according to ROC analysis also revealed that AFC performed better in poor response prediction compared with AMH, basal FSH and age. The cut-off point for mean AMH and AFC in discriminating the best between poor and normal ovarian response cycles was 0.94 ng/mL (with a sensitivity of 70 % and a specificity of 86 %) and 5.5 (with a sensitivity of 91 % and a specificity of 91 %), respectively. However, age was the only independent predictor of live birth in IVF as compared to hormonal and ultrasound indices of ovarian reserve.

Conclusion

AFC is better than AMH to predict poor ovarian response. Although AMH and AFC could be used to predict ovarian response they had limited value in live birth prediction. The only significant predictor of the probability of achieving a live birth was age.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bancsi LF, Broekmans FJ, Eijkemans MJ, de Jong FH, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. Predictors of poor ovarian response in in vitro fertilization: a prospective study comparing basal markers of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(2):328–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bancsi LF, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. Impact of repeated antral follicle counts on the prediction of poor ovarian response in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(1):35–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bancsi LF, Huijs AM, den Ouden CT, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, Blankenstein MA, et al. Basal follicle-stimulating hormone levels are of limited value in predicting ongoing pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(3):552–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Barad DH, Weghofer A, Gleicher N. Comparing anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) as predictors of ovarian function. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(4 Suppl):1553–5. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.09.069.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bersinger NA, Wunder D, Birkhauser MH, Guibourdenche J. Measurement of anti-mullerian hormone by Beckman Coulter ELISA and DSL ELISA in assisted reproduction: differences between serum and follicular fluid. Clin Chim Acta Int J Clin Chem. 2007;384(1–2):174–5. doi:10.1016/j.cca.2007.05.011.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Boomsma CM, Macklon NS. What can the clinician do to improve implantation? Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14(Spec No 1):27–37. doi:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61456-3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Broekmans FJ, Kwee J, Hendriks DJ, Mol BW, Lambalk CB. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Updat. 2006;12(6):685–718. doi:10.1093/humupd/dml034.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Broer SL, Mol BW, Hendriks D, Broekmans FJ. The role of antimullerian hormone in prediction of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(3):705–14. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.12.013.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Broer SL, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, Dolleman M, Opmeer BC, Bossuyt P, et al. Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient characteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: an individual patient data approach. Hum Reprod Updat. 2013;19(1):26–36. doi:10.1093/humupd/dms041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bukman A, Heineman MJ. Ovarian reserve testing and the use of prognostic models in patients with subfertility. Hum Reprod Updat. 2001;7(6):581–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Buyuk E, Seifer DB, Younger J, Grazi RV, Lieman H. Random anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) is a predictor of ovarian response in women with elevated baseline early follicular follicle-stimulating hormone levels. Fertil Steril. 2011;95(7):2369–72. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.03.071.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Chang MY, Chiang CH, Hsieh TT, Soong YK, Hsu KH. Use of the antral follicle count to predict the outcome of assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(3):505–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Durlinger AL, Kramer P, Karels B, de Jong FH, Uilenbroek JT, Grootegoed JA, et al. Control of primordial follicle recruitment by anti-Mullerian hormone in the mouse ovary. Endocrinology. 1999;140(12):5789–96.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Durmusoglu F, Elter K, Yoruk P, Erenus M. Combining cycle day 7 follicle count with the basal antral follicle count improves the prediction of ovarian response. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(4):1073–8. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.08.044.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Ebner T, Sommergruber M, Moser M, Shebl O, Schreier-Lechner E, Tews G. Basal level of anti-Mullerian hormone is associated with oocyte quality in stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(8):2022–6. doi:10.1093/humrep/del127.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Eldar-Geva T, Ben-Chetrit A, Spitz IM, Rabinowitz R, Markowitz E, Mimoni T, et al. Dynamic assays of inhibin B, anti-Mullerian hormone and estradiol following FSH stimulation and ovarian ultrasonography as predictors of IVF outcome. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(11):3178–83. doi:10.1093/humrep/dei203.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Elgindy EA, El-Haieg DO, El-Sebaey A. Anti-Mullerian hormone: correlation of early follicular, ovulatory and midluteal levels with ovarian response and cycle outcome in intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(6):1670–6. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.040.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Faddy MJ, Gosden RG, Gougeon A, Richardson SJ, Nelson JF. Accelerated disappearance of ovarian follicles in mid-life: implications for forecasting menopause. Hum Reprod. 1992;7(10):1342–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1616–24. doi:10.1093/humrep/der092.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ficicioglu C, Kutlu T, Baglam E, Bakacak Z. Early follicular antimullerian hormone as an indicator of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(3):592–6. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.09.019.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Frattarelli JL, Lauria-Costab DF, Miller BT, Bergh PA, Scott RT. Basal antral follicle number and mean ovarian diameter predict cycle cancellation and ovarian responsiveness in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(3):512–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Frattarelli JL, Levi AJ, Miller BT, Segars JH. A prospective assessment of the predictive value of basal antral follicles in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2003;80(2):350–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Freour T, Mirallie S, Bach-Ngohou K, Denis M, Barriere P, Masson D. Measurement of serum anti-Mullerian hormone by Beckman Coulter ELISA and DSL ELISA: comparison and relevance in assisted reproduction technology (ART). Clin Chim Acta Int J Clin Chem. 2007;375(1–2):162–4. doi:10.1016/j.cca.2006.06.013.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Barad DH. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) defines, independent of age, low versus good live-birth chances in women with severely diminished ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(7):2824–7. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.04.067.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gnoth C, Schuring AN, Friol K, Tigges J, Mallmann P, Godehardt E. Relevance of anti-Mullerian hormone measurement in a routine IVF program. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(6):1359–65. doi:10.1093/humrep/den108.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Hehenkamp WJ, Looman CW, Themmen AP, de Jong FH, Te Velde ER, Broekmans FJ. Anti-Mullerian hormone levels in the spontaneous menstrual cycle do not show substantial fluctuation. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2006;91(10):4057–63. doi:10.1210/jc.2006-0331.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hsieh YY, Chang CC, Tsai HD. Antral follicle counting in predicting the retrieved oocyte number after ovarian hyperstimulation. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2001;18(6):320–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Jayaprakasan K, Campbell B, Hopkisson J, Johnson I, Raine-Fenning N. A prospective, comparative analysis of anti-Mullerian hormone, inhibin-B, and three-dimensional ultrasound determinants of ovarian reserve in the prediction of poor response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(3):855–64. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.10.042.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Klinkert ER, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. The antral follicle count is a better marker than basal follicle-stimulating hormone for the selection of older patients with acceptable pregnancy prospects after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(3):811–4. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.11.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Klinkert ER, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, Te Velde ER. A poor response in the first in vitro fertilization cycle is not necessarily related to a poor prognosis in subsequent cycles. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(5):1247–53. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.10.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kupesic S, Kurjak A, Bjelos D, Vujisic S. Three-dimensional ultrasonographic ovarian measurements and in vitro fertilization outcome are related to age. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(1):190–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kwee J, Schats R, McDonnell J, Themmen A, de Jong F, Lambalk C. Evaluation of anti-Mullerian hormone as a test for the prediction of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 2008;90(3):737–43. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.07.1293.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. La Marca A, Giulini S, Tirelli A, Bertucci E, Marsella T, Xella S, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone measurement on any day of the menstrual cycle strongly predicts ovarian response in assisted reproductive technology. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(3):766–71. doi:10.1093/humrep/del421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. La Marca A, Nelson SM, Sighinolfi G, Manno M, Baraldi E, Roli L, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone-based prediction model for a live birth in assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;22(4):341–9. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.11.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, Baraldi E, Artenisio AC, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Updat. 2010;16(2):113–30. doi:10.1093/humupd/dmp036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. La Marca A, Stabile G, Artenisio AC, Volpe A. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone throughout the human menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(12):3103–7. doi:10.1093/humrep/del291.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lashen H, Ledger W, Lopez-Bernal A, Barlow D. Poor responders to ovulation induction: is proceeding to in-vitro fertilization worthwhile? Hum Reprod. 1999;14(4):964–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Lass A, Gerrard A, Abusheikha N, Akagbosu F, Brinsden P. IVF performance of women who have fluctuating early follicular FSH levels. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2000;17(10):566–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Lee TH, Liu CH, Huang CC, Hsieh KC, Lin PM, Lee MS. Impact of female age and male infertility on ovarian reserve markers to predict outcome of assisted reproduction technology cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009;7:100. doi:10.1186/1477-7827-7-100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Lekamge DN, Barry M, Kolo M, Lane M, Gilchrist RB, Tremellen KP. Anti-Mullerian hormone as a predictor of IVF outcome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14(5):602–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. McIlveen M, Skull JD, Ledger WL. Evaluation of the utility of multiple endocrine and ultrasound measures of ovarian reserve in the prediction of cycle cancellation in a high-risk IVF population. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(3):778–85. doi:10.1093/humrep/del435.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Muttukrishna S, McGarrigle H, Wakim R, Khadum I, Ranieri DM, Serhal P. Antral follicle count, anti-mullerian hormone and inhibin B: predictors of ovarian response in assisted reproductive technology? BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;112(10):1384–90. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00670.x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Nahum R, Shifren JL, Chang Y, Leykin L, Isaacson K, Toth TL. Antral follicle assessment as a tool for predicting outcome in IVF–is it a better predictor than age and FSH? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2001;18(3):151–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Nakhuda GS, Sauer MV, Wang JG, Ferin M, Lobo RA. Mullerian inhibiting substance is an accurate marker of ovarian response in women of advanced reproductive age undergoing IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14(4):450–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Nardo LG, Gelbaya TA, Wilkinson H, Roberts SA, Yates A, Pemberton P, et al. Circulating basal anti-Mullerian hormone levels as predictor of ovarian response in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(5):1586–93. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.127.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Nelson SM, Yates RW, Fleming R. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone and FSH: prediction of live birth and extremes of response in stimulated cycles–implications for individualization of therapy. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(9):2414–21. doi:10.1093/humrep/dem204.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Ng EH, Tang OS, Ho PC. The significance of the number of antral follicles prior to stimulation in predicting ovarian responses in an IVF programme. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(9):1937–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Ocal P, Sahmay S, Cetin M, Irez T, Guralp O, Cepni I. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle count as predictive markers of OHSS in ART cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2011;28(12):1197–203. doi:10.1007/s10815-011-9627-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Pache TD, Wladimiroff JW, de Jong FH, Hop WC, Fauser BC. Growth patterns of nondominant ovarian follicles during the normal menstrual cycle. Fertil Steril. 1990;54(4):638–42.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Penarrubia J, Fabregues F, Manau D, Creus M, Casals G, Casamitjana R, et al. Basal and stimulation day 5 anti-Mullerian hormone serum concentrations as predictors of ovarian response and pregnancy in assisted reproductive technology cycles stimulated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist--gonadotropin treatmen. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(4):915–22. doi:10.1093/humrep/deh718.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Riggs RM, Duran EH, Baker MW, Kimble TD, Hobeika E, Yin L, et al. Assessment of ovarian reserve with anti-Mullerian hormone: a comparison of the predictive value of anti-Mullerian hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, and age. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(2):202. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2008.05.004. e201-208.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Scheffer GJ, Broekmans FJ, Bancsi LF, Habbema JD, Looman CW, Te Velde ER. Quantitative transvaginal two- and three-dimensional sonography of the ovaries: reproducibility of antral follicle counts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2002;20(3):270–5. doi:10.1046/j.1469-0705.2002.00787.x.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Scheffer GJ, Broekmans FJ, Dorland M, Habbema JD, Looman CW, te Velde ER. Antral follicle counts by transvaginal ultrasonography are related to age in women with proven natural fertility. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(5):845–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Scott Jr RT, Hofmann GE, Oehninger S, Muasher SJ. Intercycle variability of day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone levels and its effect on stimulation quality in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1990;54(2):297–302.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Seifer DB, Lambert-Messerlian G, Hogan JW, Gardiner AC, Blazar AS, Berk CA. Day 3 serum inhibin-B is predictive of assisted reproductive technologies outcome. Fertil Steril. 1997;67(1):110–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Seifer DB, Scott Jr RT, Bergh PA, Abrogast LK, Friedman CI, Mack CK, et al. Women with declining ovarian reserve may demonstrate a decrease in day 3 serum inhibin B before a rise in day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(1):63–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Smeenk JM, Sweep FC, Zielhuis GA, Kremer JA, Thomas CM, Braat DD. Antimullerian hormone predicts ovarian responsiveness, but not embryo quality or pregnancy, after in vitro fertilization or intracyoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(1):223–6. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.06.019.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Soldevila PN, Carreras O, Tur R, Coroleu B, Barri PN. Sonographic assessment of ovarian reserve. Its correlation with outcome of in vitro fertilization cycles. Gynecol Endocrinol Off J Int Soc Gynecol Endocrinol. 2007;23(4):206–12. doi:10.1080/09513590701253776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Tremellen KP, Kolo M, Gilmore A, Lekamge DN. Anti-mullerian hormone as a marker of ovarian reserve. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;45(1):20–4. doi:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2005.00332.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Tsepelidis S, Devreker F, Demeestere I, Flahaut A, Gervy C, Englert Y. Stable serum levels of anti-Mullerian hormone during the menstrual cycle: a prospective study in normo-ovulatory women. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(7):1837–40. doi:10.1093/humrep/dem101.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. van Disseldorp J, Eijkemans MJ, Klinkert ER, te Velde ER, Fauser BC, Broekmans FJ. Cumulative live birth rates following IVF in 41- to 43-year-old women presenting with favourable ovarian reserve characteristics. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;14(4):455–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. van Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, te Velde ER, Fauser BC, Bancsi LF, de Jong FH, et al. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels: a novel measure of ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(12):3065–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Weenen C, Laven JS, Von Bergh AR, Cranfield M, Groome NP, Visser JA, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone expression pattern in the human ovary: potential implications for initial and cyclic follicle recruitment. Mol Hum Reprod. 2004;10(2):77–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Yong PY, Baird DT, Thong KJ, McNeilly AS, Anderson RA. Prospective analysis of the relationships between the ovarian follicle cohort and basal FSH concentration, the inhibin response to exogenous FSH and ovarian follicle number at different stages of the normal menstrual cycle and after pituitary down-regulation. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(1):35–44.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This research received funding from the Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit of Gazi University (grant 01/2005-2).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey

    Mehmet Firat Mutlu, Mehmet Erdem, Ahmet Erdem, Sule Yildiz & Mesut Oktem

  2. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Elazig Training and Research Hospital, Elazig, Turkey

    Ilknur Mutlu

  3. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Soke State Hospital, Aydın, Turkey

    Ozgur Arisoy

  4. Angora Caddesi, Beysu Green Park Konutları, Beysukent, Ankara, Turkey

    Mehmet Firat Mutlu

Authors
  1. Mehmet Firat Mutlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehmet Erdem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmet Erdem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sule Yildiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ilknur Mutlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ozgur Arisoy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Mesut Oktem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mehmet Firat Mutlu.

Additional information

Capsule

AFC is better than AMH to predict poor ovarian response. Both could be used to predict ovarian response. Only significant predictor of the probability of achieving live birth was age.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mutlu, M.F., Erdem, M., Erdem, A. et al. Antral follicle count determines poor ovarian response better than anti-müllerian hormone but age is the only predictor for live birth in in vitro fertilization cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 30, 657–665 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-9975-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-9975-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation