Search

BACKGROUND Although ovarian reserve tests (ORTs) are frequently used prior to IVF treatment for outcome prediction, their added predictive value is unclear. We assessed the added value of ORTs to patient characteristics in the prediction of IVF outcome. METHODS An individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis from published studies was performed. Studies on FSH, anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) or antral follicle count (AFC) in women undergoing IVF were identified and authors were contacted. Using random intercept logistic regression models, we estimated the added predictive value of ORTs for poor response and ongoing pregnancy after IVF, relative to patient characteristics. RESULTS We were able to collect 28 study databases, comprising 5705 women undergoing IVF. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) for female age in predicting poor response was 0.61. AFC and AMH each significantly improved the model fit (P-value <0.001). Moreover, almost a similar accuracy was reached using AMH or AFC alone (AUC 0.78 and 0.76, respectively). Combining the two tests, however, did not improve prediction (AUC 0.80, P = 0.19) of poor response. In predicting ongoing pregnancy after IVF, age was the best single predictor (AUC 0.57), and none of the ORTs added any value. CONCLUSIONS This IPD meta-analysis demonstrates that AFC and AMH clearly add to age in predicting poor response. As single tests, AFC and AMH both fully cover the prediction of poor ovarian response. In contrast, none of the ORTs add any information to the limited capacity of female age to predict ongoing pregnancy after IVF. The clinical usefulness of ORTs prior to IVF will be limited to the prediction of ovarian response.

Background: The Chlamydia IgG antibody test (CAT) shows considerable variations in reported estimates of test accuracy, partly because of the use of different assays and cut-off values. The aim of this study was to reassess the accuracy of CAT in diagnosing tubal pathology by individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis for three different CAT assays., Methods: We approached authors of primary studies that used micro-immunofluorescence tests (MIF), immunofluorescence tests (IF) or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay tests (ELISA). Using the obtained IPD, we performed pooled receiver operator characteristics analysis and logistic regression analysis with a random effects model to compare the three assays. Tubal pathology was defined as either any tubal obstruction or bilateral tubal obstruction., Results: We acquired data of 14 primary studies containing data of 6191 women, of which data of 3453 women were available for analysis. The areas under the curve for ELISA, IF and MIF were 0.64, 0.65 and 0.75, respectively (P-value < 0.001) for any tubal pathology and 0.66, 0.66 and 0.77, respectively (P-value = 0.01) for bilateral tubal pathology., Conclusions: In Chlamydia antibody testing, MIF is superior in the assessment of tubal pathology. In the initial screen for tubal pathology MIF should therefore be the test of first choice.

Background: Conventional meta-analysis has estimated the sensitivity and specificity of hysterosalpingography (HSG) to be 65% and 83%. The impact of patient characteristics on the accuracy of HSG is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess by individual patient data meta-analysis whether the accuracy of HSG is associated with different patient characteristics., Methods: We approached authors of primary studies reporting on the accuracy of HSG using findings at laparoscopy as the reference. We assessed whether patient characteristics such as female age, duration of subfertility and a clinical history without risk factors for tubal pathology were associated with the accuracy of HSG, using a random intercept logistic regression model., Results: We acquired data of seven primary studies containing data of 4521 women. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of HSG were 53% and 87% for any tubal pathology and 46% and 95% for bilateral tubal pathology. In women without risk factors, the sensitivity of HSG was 38% for any tubal pathology, compared with 61% in women with risk factors (P = 0.005). For bilateral tubal pathology, these rates were 13% versus 47% (P = 0.01). For bilateral tubal pathology, the sensitivity of HSG decreased with age [factor 0.93 per year (P = 0.05)]. The specificity of HSG was very stable across all subgroups., Conclusions: The accuracy of HSG in detecting tubal pathology was similar in all subgroups, except for women without risk factors in whom sensitivity was lower, possibly due to false-positive results at laparoscopy. HSG is a useful tubal patency screening test for all infertile couples.