Table 1 Summary characteristics of studies and participants
No. | Study | Region | Study design | Sample size (n) | Chronological Age(y) | Bone Age | BA-CA of cases (mean, y) | Duration (y) | Tanner stage | Drug used | Measuring method of AMH/ INHB | Primary conclusion | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cases | Control | Cases | Control | Cases | Control | Cases | Control | ||||||||||
1. | Crofton (2005) [32] | United Kingdom (Oxford) | cross-sectional study | 24 (PT11, CPP13) | 11 | 5.18±3.24 | 2.40±2.46 | NA | NA | NA | NA | II | I | No | Doubleantibody ELISA | INHB increased in PT, remained unchanged in CPP | |
2. | Utriainen (2010) [33] | Finland (Kuopio) | cross-sectional study | PA 52 | 48 | 7.47±0.91 | 7.38±0.79 | NA | NA | NA | NA | I | I | No | ELISA (Diagnostic Systems Laboratories Inc., Webster, Tex., USA) | AMH decreased in PA | |
3. | Sahin (2015) [34] | Turkey (Ankara) | cross-sectional study | 65 (PT37, CPP28) | 25 | 7.44±0.82 | 7.64±1.86 | 8.14±1.73 | NA | 0.7 | PT | CPP | PT | CPP | No | ELISA (Immunotech, Beckman Coulter Inc., Brea, CA, USA) | AMH remained unchanged in CPP and PT |
2.11±2.71 | 5.34±5.89 | II,III | II, III ,IV | ||||||||||||||
4. | Korkmaz (2016) [25] | Turkey (Izmir) | cross-sectional study | PP 28 | 20 | 7.62±0.77 | 7.42±0.88 | NA | NA | NA | NA | II, III | I | NA | ELISA (Immunotech/Beckman Coulter instrument) | AMH increased in PP | |
5. | Nam (2017) [26] | Korea (Seoul) | cross-sectional study | CPP 98 | 55 | 8.4±0.5 | 9.4±0.5 | 9.9±0.6 | 9.8±0.4 | 1.5 | NA | NA | NA | No | ELISA (Beckman Coulter Inc., Brea, CA, USA). | AMH remained unchanged in CPP | |
6. | Savas-Erdeve (2017) [27] | Turkey (Ankara) | cross-sectional study | 45 (CPP21, PT24) | 22 | 7.30±0.75 | 6.52±1.10 | 8.31±1.31 | 6.9±1.1 | 1.01 | NA | NA | NA | No | ELISA (Anshlab AMH/MIS ELISA kit) | AMH increased in PT and CPP | |
7. | Grandone (2018) [35] | Italy (Naples and Trieste) | cross-sectional study | CPP 17 | 17 | 7±1.5 | 6.3±2.1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | I | No | ELISA (MyBioSource, San Diego, CA, USA) | AMH remained unchanged in CPP | |
8. | Brar (2018) [28] | US (New york) | cross-sectional study | PA 76 | 12 | 6.7±0.9 | 6.2±1.3 | 7.7±1.5 | 6.4±1.5 | 1.0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | Gen II ELISA | AMH remained unchanged in PA | |
9. | Efthymiadou (2019) [29] | Greece (Patra) | cross-sectional study | PA 55 | 89 | 6.98±1.60 | 6.78±1.60 | 7.47±1.62 | NA | 0.49 | NA | NA | NA | No | 2-site ELISA (Diagnostic System Laboratories,Webster, Texas) | AMH increased in PA | |
10. | Jeong (2020) [30] | Korea (Cheonan) | cross-sectional study | CPP 48 | 35 | 8.43±0.46 | 8.01±0.54 | 10.48±0.6 | 7.79± 0.74 | 2.05 | NA | II, III | I | No | Gen II ELISA (Immunotech, Beckman Coulter Inc., USA) | INHB increased in CPP, AMH remained unchanged in CPP | |
11. | Liu (2021) [31] | China (Beijing) | cross-sectional study | CPP 44 | 71 | 7.85±1.02 | 7.59±1.48 | 9.41±1.06 | 8.20±0.83 | 1.56 | NA | II, III ,IV | II, III,IV | NA | Serum INHB was measured by a Gen II ELISA (Immunotech, Beckman Coulter Inc., CA, USA). Serum AMH was measured by an ELISA (Immunotech, Beckman Coulter Inc., CA, USA) | INHB increased in CPP, AMH remained unchanged in CPP | |