咨询与建议

看过本文的还看了

相关文献

该作者的其他文献

文献详情 >克罗米芬兴奋试验与外源性卵泡刺激素卵巢储备试验相比,作为一种... 收藏

克罗米芬兴奋试验与外源性卵泡刺激素卵巢储备试验相比,作为一种单独的试验鉴定体外受精低应答与高应答

The clomiphene citrate challenge test versus the exogenous follicle-stimulating hormone ovarian reserve test as a single test for identification of low responders and hyperresponders to in vitro fertilization

作     者:Kwee J. Schats R. McDonnell J. 党慧敏 

作者机构:Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Fertility the IVF Center Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Amsterdam Netherlands Dr. 

出 版 物:《世界核心医学期刊文摘(妇产科学分册)》 (Core Journal in Obstetrics/Gynecology)

年 卷 期:2006年第2卷第10期

页      面:24-25页

学科分类:1002[医学-临床医学] 100211[医学-妇产科学] 10[医学] 

主  题:体外受精 卵巢储备 卵泡刺激素 试验鉴定 卵母细胞 应答者 外源 抑制素 随机研究 大学医院 

摘      要:Objective: This study was designed to compare the exogenous FSHovarian reserve test(EFORT) versus the clomiphene citrate challenge test(CCCT), basal FSH, and basal inhibin B, with respect to their ability to predict poor and/or hyperresponders in an IVF population. Design: Prospective randomized controlled trial. Setting: Fertility center of a university hospital. Patient(s): One hundred ten patients undergoing their first IVF cycle, randomized into two groups. Intervention(s): Fifty-six patients underwent a CCCT, and 54 patients underwent an EFORT. In all patients, the test was followed by an IVF treatment. Main Outcome Measure(s): Ovarian response, expressed by the total number of retrieved oocytes. Result(s): Univariate logistic regression showed that the best predictor for poor response is the CCCT(area under receiver operator characteristic curve [ROCAUC] =0.87),with maximal accuracy of 0.89. Multiple logistic regression analysis did not produce a better model in terms of improving the prediction of poor response. For hyper response, univariate logistic regression showed that the best predictor is the inhibin B increment in the EFORT(ROC-AUC=0.92) but with a low maximal accuracy of 0.78. Again, multiple logistic regression analysis did not produce a better model in terms of predicting hyper response. Conclusion(s): Our study, the first which compares the CCCT with the EFORT for the prediction of poor and hyperresponders, shows that the CCCT is superior for identification of low responders. The EFORT(inhibin B increment) is superior for prediction of hyper response at the cost of a high rate of false positives. Neither of the two tests seems adequate to act alone for identification of both poor and hyperresponders.

读者评论 与其他读者分享你的观点

用户名:未登录
我的评分