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.coauthorEdades, Jonalyn
dc.contributor.coauthorFatemi, Human
dc.contributor.departmentSchool of Medicine
dc.contributor.kuauthorKalafat, Erkan
dc.contributor.schoolcollegeinstituteSCHOOL OF MEDICINE
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.quartileQ1
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 and 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
person.familyNameKalafat
person.givenNameErkan
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublicationd02929e1-2a70-44f0-ae17-7819f587bedd
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscoveryd02929e1-2a70-44f0-ae17-7819f587bedd
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication17f2dc8e-6e54-4fa8-b5e0-d6415123a93e
relation.isParentOrgUnitOfPublication.latestForDiscovery17f2dc8e-6e54-4fa8-b5e0-d6415123a93e

Files