Vesko Stoilov, Ivan Kostov, Petar Petrov, Nigar Jafer


We found that the majority of participants in our study in the group of women with Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) had Body mass index values between 25 and 29.99 (35.97%), which according to current norms of the indicator puts them in the group of obesity. In the same group, the second largest were the patients with normal weight or BMI between 18.5 and 24.99 (25.12%). Third in number is the group of respondents with Body mass index between 30 and 34.99 (22,16%) or defined as obesity of the 1st degree. The mean body mass index of women in the PCOS group was 28.32. The mean BMI for women in the control group of our study is 23.17.


Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), Body mass index (BMI)

Full Text:



I. Park, K. H. Lee, H. G. Sun, S. K. Kim, J. H. Lee, and G. H. Leon, High accuracy of IVF prognosis attained using a combination of AMH and day 3 FSH/LH ratio, Fertility and Sterility, vol. 96, supplement, p. S190, 2011.

I. D. Harris, S. Wang, L. Roth, R. Alvero, P. McShane, and W. D. Schlaff, When antimullerain hormone and follicle stimulating hormone offer a discrepent prognosis of ovarian reserve, in vitro fertilization outcomes are worse than when both values predict poor ovarian reserve, Fertility and Sterility, vol. 94, supplement, p. S26, 2010.

A. La Marca, G. Stabile, A. Carducci Artenisio, and A. Volpe, Serum anti-Müllerian hormone throughout the human menstrual cycle, Human Reproduction, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 3103–3107, 2006.

O. Rustamov, A. Smith, S. A. Roberts et al., Anti-Müllerian hormone: poor assay reproducibility in a large cohort of subjects suggests sample instability, Human Reproduction, vol. 27, pp. 3085–3091, 2012.

H. Abdallah and Y. Thum, Association of AMH and FSH levels with IVF treatment, Fertility and Sterility, vol. 90, supplement, p. 405, 2008.

S. D. Harlow, M. Gass, J. E. Hall et al., Executive summary of the Stages of Reproductive Aging Workshop + 10: addressing the unfinished agenda of staging reproductive aging, Menopause, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 387–395, 2012.

N. Gleicher, A. Weghofer, and D. H. Barad, Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) defines, independent of age, low versus good live-birth chances in women with severely diminished ovarian reserve, Fertility and Sterility, vol. 94, no. 7, pp. 2824–2827, 2010.

R. K. K. Lee, F. S. Y. Wu, M.-H. Lin, S.-Y. Lin, and Y.-M. Hwu, The predictability of serum anti-Müllerian level in IVF/ICSI outcomes for patients of advanced reproductive age, Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, vol. 9, article 115, 2011.

B. Friden, P. Sjoblom, and J. Menzes, Using anti-Müllerian hormone to identify a good prognosis group in women of advanced reproductive age, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 51, pp. 411–415, 2011.

N. Gleicher and D. H. Barad, Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) supplementation in diminished ovarian reserve (DOR), Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, vol. 9, article 67, 2011.

A. Hazout, P. Bouchard, D. B. Seifer, P. Aussage, A. M. Junca, and P. Cohen-Bacrie, Serum anti-Müllerian hormone/Müllerian-inhibiting substance appears to be a more discriminatory marker of assisted reproductive technology outcome than follicle- stimulating hormone, inhibin B, or estradiol, Fertility and Sterility, vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 1323 1329, 2004.

D. N. Lekamge, M. Barry, M. Kolo, M. Lane, R. B. Gilchrist, and K. P. Tremellen, Anti- Müllerian hormone as a predictor of IVF outcome, Reproductive BioMedicine Online, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 602–610, 2007.

J. M. J. Smeenk, F. C. G. J. Sweep, G. A. Zielhuis, J. A. M. Kremer, C. M. G. Thomas, and D. D. M. Braat, Anti-Müllerian hormone predicts ovarian responsiveness, but not embryo quality or pregnancy, after in vitro fertilization or intracyoplasmic sperm injection, Fertility and Sterility, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 223–226, 2007.

S. L. Fong, E. B. Baart, E. Martini et al., Anti-Müllerian hormone: a marker for oocyte quantity, oocyte quality and embryo quality? Reproductive BioMedicine Online, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 664–670, 2008.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

New knowledge Journal of science is financed by the National Science Fund of the Republic of Bulgaria  in the competition of Bulgarian scientific periodicals – 2019

New knowledge Journal of science is financed by the National Science Fund of the Republic of Bulgaria – contract № ДНП 05/52 от 22.12.2016 in the competition of Bulgarian scientific periodicals – 2016

The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the position or opinion of the National Science Fund of the Republic of Bulgaria. The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) only and should not be considered as representative of the National Science Fund’s official position.

National Science Fund of Bulgaria