Publication:
Should a history of pregnancy loss call for an assessment of the ovarian reserve in women 35 years of age or younger?

dc.contributor.coauthorLawrenz, Barbara
dc.contributor.coauthorKalafat, Erkan
dc.contributor.coauthorEdades, Jonalyn
dc.contributor.coauthorFatemi, Human
dc.date.accessioned2025-12-31T08:24:15Z
dc.date.available2025-12-31
dc.date.issued2025
dc.description.abstractResearch question: Is a history of pregnancy loss correlated with low age-adapted ovarian reserve in women aged 35 years or younger? Design: This was a retrospective cohort study. Results: A total of 931 women aged 35 years or less with anti-Mu<euro>llerian-hormone (AMH) values measured at presentation to a fertility centre were included in the analysis. The pregnancy loss rate, modelled as pregnancy loss count per previous pregnancy, increased at both ends of the age-normalized AMH z-score, showing a statistically significant increase (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.25-0.94; P = 0.032) at the lower end (z-score lower than -1.28, 10th percentile) of AMH values. Conclusions: Women aged 35 years or less are assumed to have a low risk of aneuploidy as a cause of pregnancy loss. While the association between low ovarian reserve and pregnancy loss in this group is still debated, the findings presented describe a significant association between a history of pregnancy loss in women of 35 years or less and an age-adjusted low ovarian reserve. This calls for assessment of the ovarian reserve in women with pregnancy losses, as an early diagnosis of low ovarian reserve may have far-reaching implications for fertility counselling, especially in an era when women often postpone childbearing.
dc.description.fulltextYes
dc.description.harvestedfromManual
dc.description.indexedbyWOS
dc.description.indexedbyScopus
dc.description.indexedbyPubMed
dc.description.publisherscopeInternational
dc.description.readpublishN/A
dc.description.sponsoredbyTubitakEuN/A
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.rbmo.2025.104995
dc.identifier.eissn1472-6491
dc.identifier.embargoNo
dc.identifier.issn1472-6483
dc.identifier.issue3
dc.identifier.pubmed40623339
dc.identifier.quartileN/A
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105009621295
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2025.104995
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14288/31777
dc.identifier.volume51
dc.identifier.wos001532706800001
dc.keywordsAnti-Mu<euro>llerian hormone
dc.keywordsOvarian reserve
dc.keywordsPregnancy loss
dc.keywordsYoung women
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherELSEVIER SCI LTD
dc.relation.affiliationKoç University
dc.relation.collectionKoç University Institutional Repository
dc.relation.ispartofREPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
dc.relation.openaccessYes
dc.rightsCC BY-NC-ND (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs)
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.subjectObstetrics & Gynecology
dc.subjectReproductive Biology
dc.titleShould a history of pregnancy loss call for an assessment of the ovarian reserve in women 35 years of age or younger?
dc.typeJournal Article
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files