A recent study highlights that many women are being misled by fertility tests that do not accurately reflect their ability to conceive. The anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test, which estimates ovarian egg count through a blood sample, is at the center of this controversy.
Researchers have pointed out that while the AMH test can measure the number of eggs available, it does not assess egg quality nor reliably predict fertility outcomes or the onset of menopause. Consequently, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists advises against using the AMH test for women not actively pursuing fertility treatments. The test’s primary utility is limited to assessing egg availability for in vitro fertilization (IVF) or egg freezing procedures.
Despite these limitations, some companies and accredited fertility clinics market the AMH test as a tool for women to gauge their overall fertility. Tessa Copp, a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Sydney’s School of Public Health, expressed concern over these practices. “We observed numerous instances of misleading advertising, both online and on social media, and heard about individuals who made significant life decisions based on inaccurate interpretations of their AMH test results,” Copp said.
In response to these issues, Copp and her team conducted a study to evaluate whether women would still opt for the AMH test if fully informed about its capabilities and limitations. They recruited over 1,000 women, aged 25 to 40, from Australia and the Netherlands who had never given birth but were considering future parenthood. These participants were divided into two groups: one received an evidence-based review of the AMH test created by medical experts, while the other received a promotional brochure from a company selling the test.
The study found that women who reviewed the evidence-based information rated their interest in the AMH test at an average of 3.8 out of 7, reflecting a general disinterest. In contrast, those who saw the commercial brochure rated their interest at 4.9 out of 7. The midpoint of the scale is 4, indicating that the evidence-based information led to lower interest compared to the promotional material.
“Women exposed to the evidence-based information had a clearer understanding of the test’s limitations,” Copp noted. “They valued it less and were less inclined to discuss it with their healthcare providers or seek testing compared to those who received the commercial brochure.”
The findings, published in the journal Human Reproduction on July 28, underscore the need for transparency and accurate information regarding fertility tests. Copp has urged regulatory bodies to enforce stricter standards against misleading marketing practices. “Regulatory agencies must ensure that clinics provide clear, truthful information and take action against those disseminating deceptive claims,” she emphasized.
Related Links:
