Multi-center clinical evaluation of the Access AMH assay to determine AMH levels in reproductive age women during normal menstrual cycles.

BACKGROUND: AMH is widely used for assessing ovarian reserve, and it is particularly convenient, because it is thought to have minimal variability throughout the menstrual cycle. However, studies assessing the stability of AMH over the menstrual cycle have been conflicting. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine whether AMH levels vary across the normal menstrual cycle. DESIGN: A multi-center, prospective cohort study conducted at three US centers. METHODS: Fifty females with regular menstrual cycles aged 18-45 underwent serial venipuncture every 3-5 days starting in the early follicular phase and lasting up to 10 collections. AMH was tested using the Access 2 immunoassay system. RESULTS: Age-adjusted mixed-effect models utilizing data from 384 samples from 50 subjects demonstrated a within subject standard deviation of 0.81 (95% CI 0.75-0.88) with a coefficient of variation of 23.8% across the menstrual cycle and between subject standard deviation of 2.56 (95% CI 2.13-3.21) with a coefficient of variation of 75.1%. Intra-class correlation (ICC) of AMH across the menstrual cycle was 0.91. CONCLUSION: Overall, AMH levels, using the automated Access AMH assay, appear to be relatively stable across the menstrual cycle. Fluctuations, if any, appear to be small, and therefore, clinicians may advise patients to have AMH levels drawn at any time in the cycle.

Inter-operator and inter-device agreement and reliability of the SEM Scanner.

OBJECTIVE: The SEM Scanner is a medical device designed for use by healthcare providers as part of pressure ulcer prevention programs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the inter-rater and inter-device agreement and reliability of the SEM Scanner. METHODS: Thirty-one (31) volunteers free of pressure ulcers or broken skin at the sternum, sacrum, and heels were assessed with the SEM Scanner. Each of three operators utilized each of three devices to collect readings from four anatomical sites (sternum, sacrum, left and right heels) on each subject for a total of 108 readings per subject collected over approximately 30 min. For each combination of operator-device-anatomical site, three SEM readings were collected. Inter-operator and inter-device agreement and reliability were estimated. RESULTS: Over the course of this study, more than 3000 SEM Scanner readings were collected. Agreement between operators was good with mean differences ranging from -0.01 to 0.11. Inter-operator and inter-device reliability exceeded 0.80 at all anatomical sites assessed. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate the high reliability and good agreement of the SEM Scanner across different operators and different devices. Given the limitations of current methods to prevent and detect pressure ulcers, the SEM Scanner shows promise as an objective, reliable tool for assessing the presence or absence of pressure-induced tissue damage such as pressure ulcers.