Vesko Stoilov, Ivan Kostov, Petar Petrov, Nigar Jafer


Taking into account the results, we found that the largest number (35.64%) of the participants in the control group of the study had a waist size between 60 and 70 centimeters, followed by those with a waist size between 70 and 80 centimeters. In the group of women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), women with a waist size between 70 and 80 cm (38.42%) are the most numerous. Second in number for women with PCOS are those with waist sizes between 80 and 90 centimeters (23.64%) - defined as high-risk according to current norms. We find the fact that 9.85% of the women tested in the PCOS group had waists larger than 90 centimeters.


waist, hips, ovaries

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 Jubilee edition 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