News | Myths and Facts About Ovarian Reserve Hormone Testing
An Australian study found that women given accurate information about a test estimating the number of eggs in their ovaries were less interested in testing than women who saw only online information.
The study was published in Human Reproduction, a leading reproductive medicine journal. Researchers initiated it because misleading and inaccurate information about anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) testing is widespread across fertility clinic websites, social media, and other platforms.
AMH is measured with a blood test and may indicate the number of eggs available in an adult woman's ovaries, but it cannot accurately predict egg quality. It can be useful in fertility treatment because it indicates the likely number of eggs available for in vitro fertilization (IVF) or egg freezing, but it cannot reliably predict the chance of pregnancy or the specific age of menopause. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists therefore strongly discourages AMH testing in women who are not seeking fertility treatment. However, Dr. Tessa Copp, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Sydney School of Public Health, and colleagues found that AMH testing is increasingly marketed as a way for women to understand their fertility and likely timing of menopause.
Companies, including some accredited fertility clinics, now sell the test directly to consumers with false promises of detailed insight into fertility potential. “We conducted this study after seeing extensive false and misleading advertising from online companies and on social media, and hearing about friends who took the test for inappropriate reasons, believing it was a fertility test, then made major life changes based on the results,” Dr. Copp said.
Dr. Copp and colleagues in Australia and the Netherlands designed an online randomized controlled trial conducted from November to December 2022. They recruited 1,004 women aged 25 to 40 who lived in Australia or the Netherlands, had never given birth, were not currently pregnant but wanted children someday, and had never had an AMH test. The final analysis included 967 women.
Participants were randomly assigned one of two AMH information brochures: 1) an evidence-based brochure co-designed by women, general practitioners, gynecologists, and a multidisciplinary team; or 2) content from an Australian website marketing the test directly to consumers, used as the control. Brochures were available in English and Dutch.
After enrollment and random assignment, participants completed a questionnaire about their interest in AMH testing, measured on a seven-point scale from 1 = 'definitely not interested' to 7 = 'definitely interested'.
They were also asked whether they intended to discuss the test with a doctor or take the test, as well as about their attitudes, knowledge, emotional response, concerns, expected psychological response to testing, expected effect on family planning, and satisfaction with the information.
Women who received evidence-based information were less interested in AMH testing, averaging 3.87 on the seven-point scale. Those who viewed the existing website information showed greater interest, averaging 4.93.
“Because the scale midpoint was 4, women given evidence-based information were, on average, not interested in AMH testing, while women in the control group were interested,” Dr. Copp said.
“Women who viewed the evidence-based information understood more accurately what the test could tell them. They also saw less value in it and, on average, were less interested in discussing it with a doctor or taking the test.”
The researchers plan to distribute the evidence-based information as widely as possible to clinics, clinicians, companies, other organizations, and through social media. “We hope the co-designed, evidence-based information from this study helps clinicians and patients understand who the test is useful for and under what circumstances,” she said.
“Clinics providing misleading information violate practice standards, such as Australia's Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee scheme, and should be held accountable. Regulators need to ensure clinics provide transparent, accurate information and act against false or misleading promotion. It is concerning that women in the control group considered the misleading information credible and balanced.”
This was the first study to co-design and test the effectiveness of evidence-based AMH information. Limitations included participants having higher education levels than the general populations of Australia and the Netherlands, and some measures, such as the test's effect on family planning, being hypothetical.
News | Myths and Facts About Ovarian Reserve Hormone Testing
News | Myths and Facts About Ovarian Reserve Hormone Testing
An Australian study found that women given accurate information about a test estimating the number of eggs in their ovaries were less interested in testing than women who saw only online information.
The study was published in Human Reproduction, a leading reproductive medicine journal. Researchers initiated it because misleading and inaccurate information about anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) testing is widespread across fertility clinic websites, social media, and other platforms.
AMH is measured with a blood test and may indicate the number of eggs available in an adult woman's ovaries, but it cannot accurately predict egg quality. It can be useful in fertility treatment because it indicates the likely number of eggs available for in vitro fertilization (IVF) or egg freezing, but it cannot reliably predict the chance of pregnancy or the specific age of menopause. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists therefore strongly discourages AMH testing in women who are not seeking fertility treatment. However, Dr. Tessa Copp, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Sydney School of Public Health, and colleagues found that AMH testing is increasingly marketed as a way for women to understand their fertility and likely timing of menopause.
Companies, including some accredited fertility clinics, now sell the test directly to consumers with false promises of detailed insight into fertility potential. “We conducted this study after seeing extensive false and misleading advertising from online companies and on social media, and hearing about friends who took the test for inappropriate reasons, believing it was a fertility test, then made major life changes based on the results,” Dr. Copp said.
Dr. Copp and colleagues in Australia and the Netherlands designed an online randomized controlled trial conducted from November to December 2022. They recruited 1,004 women aged 25 to 40 who lived in Australia or the Netherlands, had never given birth, were not currently pregnant but wanted children someday, and had never had an AMH test. The final analysis included 967 women.
Participants were randomly assigned one of two AMH information brochures: 1) an evidence-based brochure co-designed by women, general practitioners, gynecologists, and a multidisciplinary team; or 2) content from an Australian website marketing the test directly to consumers, used as the control. Brochures were available in English and Dutch.
After enrollment and random assignment, participants completed a questionnaire about their interest in AMH testing, measured on a seven-point scale from 1 = 'definitely not interested' to 7 = 'definitely interested'.
They were also asked whether they intended to discuss the test with a doctor or take the test, as well as about their attitudes, knowledge, emotional response, concerns, expected psychological response to testing, expected effect on family planning, and satisfaction with the information.
Women who received evidence-based information were less interested in AMH testing, averaging 3.87 on the seven-point scale. Those who viewed the existing website information showed greater interest, averaging 4.93.
“Because the scale midpoint was 4, women given evidence-based information were, on average, not interested in AMH testing, while women in the control group were interested,” Dr. Copp said.
“Women who viewed the evidence-based information understood more accurately what the test could tell them. They also saw less value in it and, on average, were less interested in discussing it with a doctor or taking the test.”
The researchers plan to distribute the evidence-based information as widely as possible to clinics, clinicians, companies, other organizations, and through social media. “We hope the co-designed, evidence-based information from this study helps clinicians and patients understand who the test is useful for and under what circumstances,” she said.
“Clinics providing misleading information violate practice standards, such as Australia's Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee scheme, and should be held accountable. Regulators need to ensure clinics provide transparent, accurate information and act against false or misleading promotion. It is concerning that women in the control group considered the misleading information credible and balanced.”
This was the first study to co-design and test the effectiveness of evidence-based AMH information. Limitations included participants having higher education levels than the general populations of Australia and the Netherlands, and some measures, such as the test's effect on family planning, being hypothetical.
Source:
Collected online