Dynamic tests of ovarian reserve: a systematic review of diagnostic accuracy

Abha Maheshwari, Ahmed Gibreel, Siladitya Bhattacharya, Nicki Johnson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

40 Citations (Scopus)


Despite a plethora of tests of ovarian reserve, there is no perfect test to predict pregnancy. Recent evidence points that anti-Müllerian hormone and antral follicle count may be better than other tests, although other tests continue to be used and form the basis of exclusion of women from fertility treatments. This systematic review concentrated on dynamic tests of ovarian reserve [clomifene citrate challenge test (CCCT), gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist stimulation test (GAST) and exogenous FSH ovarian reserve test (EFORT)] and assessed their predictability in terms of fertility outcomes. The study did not restrict itself to women undergoing IVF. The diagnostic odds of abnormal CCCT for non-pregnancy were 2.11 (95% confidence interval, 1.04-4.29) at FSH >10 IU/l (day 3 or 10). The diagnostic accuracy of GAST and EFORT could not be determined due to inconsistencies in the way these tests were conducted. This systematic review and meta-analysis was limited by heterogeneity in terms of the population sampled and the index and reference tests. There is an urgent need for consensus on the performance of these tests and the definition of normality, if their use is to be continued. However, given the present level of evidence, these tests should be completely abandoned.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)717-734
Number of pages18
JournalReproductive Biomedicine Online
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - May 2009


  • clomiphene
  • female
  • follicle stimulating hormone
  • gonadotropin-releasing hormone
  • humans
  • oocytes
  • ovarian function tests
  • ovary
  • predictive value of tests
  • pregnancy
  • pregnancy outcome


Dive into the research topics of 'Dynamic tests of ovarian reserve: a systematic review of diagnostic accuracy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this