Skip to main content
Download PDF

Association of age at menarche and different causes of infertility: a retrospective study of 7634 women undergoing assisted reproductive technology

Journal of Ovarian Research volume 18, Article number: 40 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Infertility has become a world-wide public health problem. To identify women in a high-risk of infertility at an early stage when more treatments are available, early risk factors such as age at menarche (AAM) are being investigated. AAM is often used in epidemiological studies as a marker of the timing of pubertal development and the onset of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis functions. Therefore, our study aimed to elucidate the association of AAM and different infertility causes in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology.

Methods

A total of 7643 women were retrospectively included from the reproductive hospital affiliated with Shandong University between January 2017 and December 2019. Multivariate logistic regression models and restricted cubic spline (RSC) were performed to analyze the relationship between AAM and different infertility causes. Information on variables was obtained from medical records.

Results

Compared with primary infertility, secondary infertility would 7.7% increase risk with each one-year increase in menarche age after adjusted odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)], 1.077 (1.036, 1.119). In primary infertility group, each one-year increase in menarche age corresponded with a 16.7% increase in PCOS risk OR (95% CI), 1.218 (1.138, 1.303). AAM of women with DOR were significantly decreased in primary and secondary infertility group [OR (95% CI), 0.832 (0.716, 0.965) and OR (95% CI), 0.720 (0.603, 0.859)], respectively compared with the reference group. Moreover, there is a non-linear dose–response relationship between DOR (P < 0.001) with AAM.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates a significant impact of AAM on endocrine-related infertility in women. Further research on the relationship between the onset of menarche and the pathogenesis of infertility is warranted.

Introduction

Infertility, defined as failure to achieve pregnancy after 12 months or longer of regular unprotected sexual intercourse [1, 2], affects 1 in 6 couples in the world [3, 4] and its incidence is gradually increasing [5, 6]. In China, the incidence of infertility in reproductive-aged women is 15.5% [7]. In 85% of infertile couples, infertility is caused by an identifiable physiological abnormality or underlying disease [1]. A variety of causes contribute to female infertility, including tubal factors, ovulatory disorders, endometriosis and unexplained conditions [1, 3]. Common causes of anovulation include polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), hypothalamic amenorrhea (HA), and diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) [8]. In order to identify women in a high-risk of infertility at an early stage when more treatments are available, early risk factors like age at menarche (AAM) are being investigated. Menarche is the milestone that indicates the reproductive capacity [9] and has significant health implications. AAM, which a girl begins her first menstrual period, is often used in epidemiological studies as a marker of the timing of pubertal development and the onset of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian axis functions [10]. However, a significant worldwide decline in AAM has been reported, which has been widely assessed in studies [11,12,13]. This trend presumably reflects changes in the nutritional status and endocrine environment of children [14].

In recent decades, an increase in the incidence of infertility [15] has coincided with a long-term decline in the mean AAM [16]. Although the significant increase in the incidence of infertility is undoubtedly driven by dramatic environmental and lifestyle changes, these concurrent trends may in part reflect a biological link between the timing of puberty and the risk of infertility. The causes of infertility are diversity and its pathophysiological changes are complex, so the relationship between AAM and the risk of infertility has not been well illustrated. It has been identified that timing of menarche is related to PCOS and DOR. The patients with PCOS were significantly older at menarche and women with a DOR were younger at menarche [17]. Besides, early menarche also increased the risk of endometriosis [18,19,20]. However, the conclusion was still controversial with opposite findings. It was found that women with late menstruation were more likely to suffer from endometriosis comparing to women with normal menarche [21].

Restricted cubic spline (RCS) analysis models allow for deviations from linearity and allow flexibility in modeling the relationship between AAM and infertility. There are no studies analyzing the dose-response relationship between AAM and specific infertility risk at present. Therefore, we designed a retrospective study to elucidate the impact of AAM on different infertility causes and to explore the dose-response relationship between AAM and different infertility causes by RCS analysis.

Materials and methods

Study participants

The women treated by in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) were recruited between January 2017 and December 2019 from the Center for Reproductive Medicine, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University. A total of 7643 women with single factor infertility were included in this study. The following subjects were excluded from the study: (i) women with any chromosomal or genetic defect such as fragile X or Turner syndrome, (ii) women who had life-threatening major diseases such as hepatic failure, renal failure, malignant tumors, or severe cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases and (iii) women with missing or implausible information. All participants provided written informed consent. The study was approved by the Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee, Hospital for Reproductive Medicine Affiliated to Shandong University.

Exposure assessment

Participants were asked to recall AAM as the exact age at first menstruation or exact calendar year of first menstruation (years; registered only in integers). We mitigated recall bias in self-reported AAM by, (i) using medical records as our data source, which are objective; (ii) using a standardized interview guide to ensure that all participants were asked the same questions to minimize bias due to differences in questioning styles; and (iii) training healthcare professionals conducting the interviews to ensure that they asked consistent and neutral questions and avoid leading questions.

Outcome assessment

The medical information on infertility diagnosis was obtained from the medical records. Primary infertility was defined as a woman who has never been diagnosed with a clinical pregnancy and meets the criteria of being classified as having infertility, while secondary infertility was defined as a women unable to establish a clinical pregnancy but who has previously been diagnosed with clinical pregnancy [22]. PCOS diagnosis was defined according to the Rotterdam criteria [23, 24]. Any two of the following three characteristics were required to be present: oligo-ovulation; clinical and/or biochemical hyperandrogenism, and ovarian polycystic morphology in ultrasound examination. Endometriosis was diagnosed by laparoscopy or ultrasound. There is no uniform agreement on the diagnostic criteria for DOR. To explore the relationship between AAM and DOR, we referred to the Bologna criteria [25, 26] and expert consensus [27] for the diagnosis. Any two of the following three abnormal ovarian reserve test criteria are required to be present: bilateral antral follicle count (AFC) < 5, antimullerian hormone (AMH) levels < 1.1 ng/mL and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) > 10IU/L. Unexplained infertility was diagnosed when patients with infertility did not involve anovulation, tubal pathology, significant impairment of semen parameters and any known causes of infertility [28, 29]. Tubal factor was defined by hysterosalpingography or laparoscopy. The reference group consisted of infertile women with only tubal factor, including peri-tubal adhesions, tubal obstruction and hydrosalpinx. We assumed that endocrine factors did not play a prominent role in this specific cause of infertility.

Covariate assessment

Weight was divided by height squared to calculate body mass index. All participants had a routine baseline evaluation before infertile treatment, including age, BMI, educational level, reproductive history and laboratory evaluation of endocrine function parameters. Reproductive history included that whether mother had infertility, whether menstruation was irregular, whether happened dysmenorrhea and number of previous abortions. Basal endocrinological profiles were tested on days 2–3 of menstruation and AMH on random cycle days. Follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), progesterone (P), estradiol (E2), prolactin (PRL), testosterone (T), thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) levels were tested by chemiluminescence immunoassays (Roche Diagnostics, Germany), with intra- and inter-assay coefficients of variation of < 10%. AMH was tested using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Ansh Labs, Webster, USA).

Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses and plots were performed using SPSS 27.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and R software 4.3.1. Shapiro-Wilk test was utilized to test the normality of continuous variables. Continuous variables in non-normality distribution were expressed as median (25th-75th percentile) and categorical variables were expressed as number (percentage %). Characteristics between two groups were compared by Wilcoxon rank-sum test for non-normally distributed continuous variables and chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables. Multivariate logistic regression models were performed to analyze the relationship between age at menarche and different type of infertility, adjusting for confounding factors, including age, BMI, education level, family history, whether menstruation was irregular, whether happened dysmenorrhea and different causes of infertility. Subgroup analysis adjusted for confounding factors, including age, BMI, education level, and family history explaining the relationship between AAM and different infertility causes. Effects were described as odds ratio (OR) for logistic regressions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RCS is a commonly used method to flexibly explore nonlinear relationships in regression models and is widely used in epidemiology and clinical trials [30]. In the presence of multicollinearity, RCS can provide more robust estimates than traditional linear models. Compared to polynomial regression models, RCS reduces the risk of overfitting by limiting the degrees of freedom of the spline and provides stable estimates when the amount of data is small [31]. Therefore, the dose–response relationship between AAM and infertility was evaluated by RCS with covariates adjusted. P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

Baseline and reproductive characteristics

The baseline and reproductive characteristics of all participants were presented in Table 1. A total of 7643 women were retrospectively recruited in this study, including 4378 patients with primary infertility and 3265 patients with secondary infertility. They all had single factor infertility including 635 patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), 151 with endometriosis, 175 with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR), 303 with unexplained infertility, and 6379 reference women with tubal factor (Fig. 1). Among the infertile women, the difference between primary and secondary infertility was statistically significant by age, BMI, AAM, educational level, irregular menstruation, dysmenorrhea and different causes of infertility (P < 0.001, Table 1). The comprehensive findings of the subgroup analysis can be observed in Supplementary materials (Supplementary Tables 1 and 2) according to different causes of infertility.

Table 1 Comparison of baseline and reproductive characteristics of the difference between primary and secondary infertile groups
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Flow chart of the participants in group divisions

Full size image

As previously observed [17, 32], PCOS patients had a significantly higher BMI (P < 0.001, Table 2). Furthermore, compared with the reference women, women with DOR or unexplained infertility had a significantly older mean age at study entry and PCOS patients had a significantly younger mean age (P < 0.01, Table 2). Table 2 also showed the endocrine variables in different causes of in fertile groups. As expected, PCOS patients had a higher LH, E2, P, T, TSH, AMH, and a lower FSH (P < 0.001, Table 2). FSH, E2, and PRL was significantly increased and AMH was significantly decreased in the endometriosis group (P < 0.01, Table 2). DOR group had a higher FSH, LH, and a lower PRL, T, AMH than reference groups (P < 0.01, Table 2).

Table 2 Baseline and reproductive characteristics of the participants in different causes of infertility groups
Full size table

Association of AAM and infertility

The logistic regression between AAM and type of infertility was used to adjust for the effects of confounding factors such as age at study entry, BMI at study entry, educational levels, irregular menstruation, dysmenorrhea, family history and different causes of infertility and the results were presented in Table 3. We found that a significant relationship (P < 0.001) AAM and type of infertility. Compared with primary infertility, every year increase in AAM, there is a corresponding 7.7% risk increase in secondary infertility (OR 1.077, 95% CI 1.036–1.119, P < 0.001) (Table 3, Adjusted) after adjusting confounding factors. In models using categorical AAM, there appeared to be a protective effect of women with menarche both at age ≤ 12 years group (OR 0.794, 95% CI 0.661–0.955, P = 0.014) against secondary infertility after accounting for potential confounding factors, using menarche at age 14 years group (middle category) as a control (Table 3, Adjusted).

Table 3 Multivariate regression models for AAM and risk of different types infertility
Full size table

For different causes of infertile groups, we adjusted confounding factors including age at study entry, BMI at study entry, educational levels, family history and type of infertility. When AAM was analyzed as a continuous variable, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that per one year increase of AAM was associated with 17.6% increased risk of PCOS (OR 1.176, 95% CI 1.109–1.247, P < 0.001) and 21.4% reduced risk of DOR (OR 0.786, 95% CI 0.701–0.880, P < 0.001) (Table 4, Adjusted). The association between AAM and PCOS was more pronounced with increasing AAM. As for using categorical AAM, the risk of PCOS was significantly higher in menarche at age 15 years group (OR 1.393, 95% CI 1.082–1.792, P = 0.010), at age 16 years group (OR 1.619, 95% CI 1.207–2.171, P = 0.001) and at age ≥ 17 years group (OR 2.346, 95% CI 1.625–3.389, P < 0.001) after accounting for potential confounding factors (Table 4, Adjusted). Women with menarche both at age ≤ 12 years group (OR 2.565, 95% CI 1.535–4.287, P < 0.001) and 13 years group (OR 3.026, 95% CI 1.940–4.720, P < 0.001) faced more risk of DOR (Table 4, Adjusted). There were no significant association between AAM and two infertile groups including endometriosis and unexplained infertility after accounting for potential confounding factors.

Table 4 Multivariate regression models for AAM and risk of different causes of infertile groups
Full size table

We further evaluated the dose-response relationship between AAM and infertility (type of infertility, PCOS and DOR) by RSC analysis (Fig. 2). After adjusted aforementioned potential confounding factors, the risk of DOR was significantly associated with AAM (non-linear, P < 0.001, Fig. 2C). There were no significant non-linear association of AAM with type of infertility (P = 0.206, Fig. 2A) and PCOS (P = 0.227, Fig. 2B). In subgroup analyses, the risk of DOR was significantly associated with AAM in 26–30 years (non-linear, P = 0.044), > 36 years patients (non-linear, P = 0.002) and normal weight/lean patients (non-linear, P = 0.003). The comprehensive findings of the subgroup analysis on how participant characteristics (e.g., BMI, age, and education) influenced dose-response relationship between AAM and infertilitycan be observed in Supplementary Tables 3–5.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Association of AAM with different causes of infertility. (A. Association of AAM with type of infertility adjusted for age at time of study, BMI at time of study, educational level, family history, irregular menstruation, dysmenorrhea and different causes of infertility; B. Association of AAM with PCOS adjusted for age at time of study, BMI at time of study, educational level, family history and different types of infertility; C. Association of AAM with DOR adjusted for age at time of study, BMI at time of study, educational level, family history and different types of infertility). Abbreviations: AAM, age at menarche; BMI, body mass index; PCOS, polycystic ovary syndrome; DOR, diminished ovarian reserve

Full size image

Discussion

Our results have demonstrated that a significant relationship between AAM and type of infertility. Further analysis has revealed patients with different causes of infertility do differ significantly in terms of AAM. Patients with PCOS tended to have an older AAM. However, a younger AAM was significantly associated with DOR, which is non-linearly associated with AAM. These findings suggest that earlier or later puberty is associated with the risk of infertility.

Pulsatile gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) released by neurons of the hypothalamus causes pituitary to release LH and FSH, which in turn induces steroidogenesis in the ovary [33]. Fluctuations in estrogen and progesterone cause the first shedding of the endometrium, which is menarche. The significant association between AAM and PCOS has been previously published [17, 21], which is consistent with our findings. Later AAM affects the establishment of regular ovulatory cycles, which is associated with PCOS [21, 34]. The causality of the association between menarche timing and the pathogenesis of PCOS is unclear. Given that serum endocrine hormone levels are correlated with both AAM and PCOS, it is plausible that AMH could be causal links between them. During the early stages of follicle growth, FSH and androgens promote follicle growth and AMH is thought to hinder follicle replenishment and growth [35]. Therefore, in the pathogenesis of PCOS, AMH plays a positive role. On the other hand, PCOS is often accompanied with insulin resistance [34]. Hyperinsulinemia stimulates thecal cell proliferation, amplifies LH-mediated androgen secretion and increases the expression of LH and IGF-1 receptor [36]. However, the true nature of this relationship is difficult to determine without information about AMH during childhood, which was unavailable in our study.

In women with earlier menarche, earlier and increased exposure to dysregulated inflammatory or angiogenic mechanisms accompanied by retrograde menstruation [37] is widely discussed as causes of endometriosis [38]. Accordingly, AAM which reflects the start time of exposure to menstruation, might be expected to influence endometriosis risk [39]. Meanwhile, it increases the risk of endometriosis by extending exposure to estrogens which mediates cellular growth and differentiation in the ectopic endometrial tissue [40]. There is consistent evidence of subtle pituitary-ovarian dysfunction associated with endometriosis, which may be reflected in LH [41]. Although several studies have explored the association between the risk of endometriosis and AAM in women, these studies included different sample sizes, so there was substantial heterogeneity across previous studies. Some studies found that women with endometriosis had earlier menarche [42, 43]. However, a study reported that no significant relationship was found between the length of menstrual cycles, the AAM and the presence of endometriosis, regardless of the subgroups of subjects analyzed [44]. Our study including a large sample size suggested that AAM was not correlated with the risk of endometriosis in Chinese infertile women after adjusting potential confounding factors.

Additionally, in our study DOR tended to have an earlier AAM compared with the reference group. Although the onset of menarche cannot be attributed to a single trigger, the emergence of pulsatile GnRH secretion has been assumed essential [45]. The hypothesis that the GnRH pulsatility is feedbacked by ovarian activity and the observation of peak nongrowing follicles lost around menarche suggest a possible relationship between AAM and the female follicular pool [45, 46]. Our study has demonstrated a statistically significant association between AAM and DOR later in life. These results were consistent with some previous findings [47, 48]. The clear etiology and pathophysiology mechanisms between AAM and the follicular pool need to be further revealed. In our study, there was a significant nonlinear dose-response relationship between AAM and the occurrence of DOR, suggesting that AAM can be used as an indicator for assessing ovarian reserve function in women. The nonlinear relationship suggests that certain specific ranges of AAM may be associated with an increased risk of DOR. The nonlinear relationship emphasizes individual differences and helps to personalize medical advice and interventions for women with different menarche ages. For women with earlier AAM, special attention may need to be paid to healthy lifestyle interventions including diet, exercise and stress management, and regular ovarian function monitoring is recommended for timely detection of signs of DOR.

However, the findings of our study are still generalizable given the regional focus. The findings of our study were consistent with a previous study in Netherlands [17], which PCOS patients had an older AAM but DOR patients had a younger AAM. From a large survey among Italian secondary schoolgirls, the higher incidence of oligomenorrhea and irregular menstrual cycles among girls with older AAM, which are significant manifestations of PCOS [49]. The advantage of AAM as a screening tool is that it is easily accessible and inexpensive. However, it may not be sensitive and specific enough to be used alone to predict infertility. AAM may be more valuable as a risk factor for the development of infertility, and in combination with other risk factors (e.g., menstrual cycle regularity, history of previous pregnancies, lifestyle factors, etc.) the accuracy of infertility prediction can be improved.

The strength of our study is that all patients came from the same center with strong homogeneity. We focused on the relationship between earlier or later biological maturation and reproductive health outcomes in adulthood through their clinical and laboratory data. Despite its strengths, the current analysis does have some limitations. First, AAM, as reported by individuals, could be a source of bias. However, due to the impact of the first menstruation on a young girl’s life, it is likely that recall bias will have minimal effect, particularly for women who reach menarche at an early or late age. Secondly, due to the lack of endocrine levels at the time of menarche, it is impossible to analyze the impact of this part on infertility. Thirdly, some causes of infertility, such as idiopathic hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (IHH) and luteinized unruptured follicle syndrome (LUFS), had relatively small sample sizes and were not included in the analysis. In the future, this needs to be further explored in studies with larger sample sizes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study indicated that early or late AAM was significantly associated with an increased risk of infertility. Early or late AAM may be a potential indicator of long-term reproductive health status and physicians should be aware of its clinical significance. All physicians should be alert to the problems associated with early or late menarche and take appropriate measures to prevent its consequences. Moreover, strategies to prevent early and late menarche and its complications may be important in their own right.

Data availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Carson SA, Kallen AN. Diagnosis and management of infertility: A review. JAMA. 2021;326(1):65–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Ishihara O, Mansour R, Nygren K, et al. International committee for monitoring assisted reproductive technology (ICMART) and the world health organization (WHO) revised glossary of ART terminology, 2009∗. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(5):1520–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Vander Borght M, Wyns C. Fertility and infertility: definition and epidemiology. Clin Biochem. 2018;62(Electronic):1873–2933.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Female subfertility. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2019;5(1):8.

  5. Sun H, Gong T-T, Jiang Y-T, Zhang S, Zhao Y-H, Wu Q-J. Global, regional, and National prevalence and disability-adjusted life-years for infertility in 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: results from a global burden of disease study, 2017. Aging. 2019;11(23):10952–91.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Agarwal A, Baskaran S, Parekh N, Cho C-L, Henkel R, Vij S, et al. Male infertility. Lancet. 2021;397(10271):319–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhou Z, Zheng D, Wu H, Li R, Xu S, Kang Y, et al. Epidemiology of infertility in China: a population-based study. BJOG. 2018;125(4):432–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Thurston L, Abbara A, Dhillo WS. Investigation and management of subfertility. J Clin Pathol. 2019;72(9):579–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rees M. Menarche when and why? Lancet. 1993;342(8884):1375–6.

  10. DiVall SA, Radovick S. Pubertal development and menarche. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1135(Print):0077–8923.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Clavel-Chapelon F. Evolution of age at menarche and at onset of regular cycling in a large cohort of French women. 2002(0268–1161 (Print)).

  12. Hosokawa M, Imazeki S, Mizunuma H, Kubota T, Hayashi K. Secular trends in age at menarche and time to Establish regular menstrual cycling in Japanese women born between 1930 and 1985. BMC Womens Health. 2012;12(1).

  13. van der Eng P, Sohn K. The biological standard of living in Indonesia during the 20th century: evidence from the age at menarche. Econ Hum Biology. 2019;34:216–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bräuner EV, Busch AS, Eckert-Lind C, Koch T, Hickey M, Juul A. Trends in the incidence of central precocious puberty and normal variant puberty among children in Denmark, 1998 to 2017. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10).

  15. Inhorn MC, Patrizio P. Infertility around the Globe: new thinking on gender, reproductive technologies and global movements in the 21st century. Hum Reprod Update. 2015;21(4):411–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sørensen K, Mouritsen A, Aksglaede L, Hagen CP, Mogensen SS, Juul A. Recent secular trends in pubertal timing: implications for evaluation and diagnosis of precocious puberty. Hormone Res Paediatrics. 2012;77(3):137–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sadrzadeh S, Klip WA, Broekmans FJ, Schats R, Willemsen WN, Burger CW, et al. Birth weight and age at menarche in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome or diminished ovarian reserve, in a retrospective cohort. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(10):2225–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim HJ, Lee HS, Kazmi SZ, Hann HJ, Kang T, Cha J, et al. Familial risk for endometriosis and its interaction with smoking, age at menarche and body mass index: a population-based cohort study among siblings. BJOG. 2021;128(12):1938–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nnoaham KE, Webster P, Kumbang J, Kennedy SH, Zondervan KT. Is early age at menarche a risk factor for endometriosis? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(3):702–12. e6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee J-S, Lee YA, Shin CH, Suh DI, Lee YJ, Yon DK. Long-term health outcomes of early menarche in women: an umbrella review. QJM: Int J Med. 2022;115(12):837–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bigambo FM, Wang D, Zhang Y, Mzava SM, Dai R, Wang X. Current situation of menstruation and gynecological diseases prevalence among Chinese women: a cross-sectional study. BMC Womens Health. 2022;22(1):270.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, Racowsky C, de Mouzon J, Sokol R, et al. The international glossary on infertility and fertility care, 2017. Fertil Steril. 2017;108(3):393–406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fauser BCJM, Chang J, Azziz R, Legro R, Dewailly D, Franks S, et al. Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Hum Reprod. 2004;19(1):41–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Joham AE, Norman RJ, Stener-Victorin E, Legro RS, Franks S, Moran LJ, et al. Polycystic ovary syndrome. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2022;10(9):668–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1616–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Pastore LM, Christianson MS, Stelling J, Kearns WG, Segars JH. Reproductive ovarian testing and the alphabet soup of diagnoses: DOR, POI, POF, POR, and FOR. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(1):17–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Association EGoCoCDMoDORREFPSoCSoFpuCPM. Consensus on clinical diagnosis and management of diminished ovarian reserve. J Reprod Med. 2022;31(4):425–34.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive M. Optimal evaluation of the infertile female. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(5 Suppl 1):S264–7.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mol BW, Hart RJ. Unexplained infertility. Semin Reprod Med. 2020;38(1):1–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Harrell FE Jr., Pollock LKF, Pollock BG. BG. Regression models in clinical studies: determining relationships between predictors and response. 1988(0027-8874 (Print)).

  31. Heinzl H, Kaider A. Gaining more flexibility in Cox proportional hazards regression models with cubic spline functions. 1997(0169–2607 (Print)).

  32. Ferrero S, Anserini P, Remorgida V, Ragni N. Body mass index in endometriosis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;121(1):94–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. DiVall SA, Radovick S. Pubertal development and menarche. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1135:19–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Dumesic DA, Oberfield SE, Stener-Victorin E, Marshall JC, Laven JS, Legro RS. Scientific statement on the diagnostic criteria, epidemiology, pathophysiology, and molecular genetics of polycystic ovary syndrome. Endocr Rev. 2015;36(5):487–525.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Barad DH. Defining ovarian reserve to better understand ovarian aging. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9(Electronic):1477–7827.

    Google Scholar 

  36. De Leo V, Musacchio MC, Cappelli V, Massaro MG, Morgante G, Petraglia F. Genetic, hormonal and metabolic aspects of PCOS: an update. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016;14(1):38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Vercellini P, Vigano P, Somigliana E, Fedele L. Endometriosis: pathogenesis and treatment. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2014;10(5):261–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gazvani R, Templeton A. New considerations for the pathogenesis of endometriosis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2002;76(2):117–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Zondervan KT, Becker CM, Missmer SA, Endometriosis. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(13):1244–56.

  40. Emons G, Grundker C, Hanf V. [Are estrogens carcinogens?]. Zentralbl Gynakol. 2002;124(12):559–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Cahill DJ, Hull MG. Pituitary-ovarian dysfunction and endometriosis. Hum Reprod Update. 2000;6(1):56–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Treloar SA, Bell TA, Nagle CM, Purdie DM, Green AC. Early menstrual characteristics associated with subsequent diagnosis of endometriosis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(6):e5341–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Missmer SA, Hankinson Se Fau - Spiegelman D, Spiegelman D, Fau - Barbieri RL. Barbieri Rl Fau - Malspeis S, Malspeis S Fau - Willett WC, Willett Wc Fau - Hunter DJ, Reproductive history and endometriosis among premenopausal women. (0029-7844 (Print)).

  44. Hemmings R, Rivard M, Olive DL, Poliquin-Fleury J, Gagne D, Hugo P, et al. Evaluation of risk factors associated with endometriosis. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(6):1513–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Karapanou O, Papadimitriou A. Determinants of menarche. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2010;8:115.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Fleming R, Kelsey TW, Anderson RA, Wallace WH, Nelson SM. Interpreting human follicular recruitment and antimullerian hormone concentrations throughout life. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(5):1097–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Weghofer A, Kim A, Barad DH, Gleicher N. Age at menarche: a predictor of diminished ovarian function? Fertil Steril. 2013;100(4):1039–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Chang SH, Kim CS, Lee KS, Kim H, Yim SV, Lim YJ, et al. Premenopausal factors influencing premature ovarian failure and early menopause. Maturitas. 2007;58(1):19–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. De Sanctis V, Rigon F, Bernasconi S, Bianchin L, Bona G, Bozzola M, et al. Age at menarche and menstrual abnormalities in adolescence: does it matter?? The evidence from a large survey among Italian secondary schoolgirls. Indian J Pediatr. 2019;86(S1):34–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all the participants who enrolled in this study.

Funding

This study was supported by theNational Key Technology Research and Developmental Program of China (2022YFC2704404; 2024YFC2706700; 2024YFC2706902; 2022YFC2702905), CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Sciences (2021-I2M-5-001), Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation (ZR2022JQ33), the Fundamental Research Funds of Shandong University (2023QNTD004), and National Special Support Program for High-level Talents.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. State Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Offspring Health, Center forReproductive Medicine, Institute of Women, Children and Reproductive Health, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, 250012, China

    Miaomiao Ban, Jiejing Jiao, Jiayi Zhou, Huidan Wang & Zi-Jiang Chen

  2. The Second Hospital, State Key Laboratory of Reproductive Medicine and Offspring Health, Center for Reproductive Medicine, Institute of Women, Children and Reproductive Health, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, 250012, China

    Linlin Cui

  3. National Research Center for Assisted Reproductive Technology and Reproductive Genetics, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong, 250012, China

    Miaomiao Ban, Jiejing Jiao, Jiayi Zhou, Linlin Cui, Huidan Wang & Zi-Jiang Chen

  4. Key Laboratory of Reproductive Endocrinology (Shandong University), Ministry of Education, Jinan, Shandong, 250012, China

    Miaomiao Ban, Jiejing Jiao, Jiayi Zhou, Linlin Cui, Huidan Wang & Zi-Jiang Chen

  5. Shandong Technology Innovation Center for Reproductive Health, Jinan, Shandong, 250012, China

    Miaomiao Ban, Jiejing Jiao, Jiayi Zhou, Linlin Cui, Huidan Wang & Zi-Jiang Chen

  6. Shandong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Reproductive Health, Jinan, Shandong, 250012, China

    Miaomiao Ban, Jiejing Jiao, Jiayi Zhou, Linlin Cui, Huidan Wang & Zi-Jiang Chen

  7. Shandong Key Laboratory of Reproductive Research and Birth Defect Prevention (Under Construction), Jinan, Shandong, 250012, China

    Miaomiao Ban, Jiejing Jiao, Jiayi Zhou, Linlin Cui, Huidan Wang & Zi-Jiang Chen

  8. Research Unit of Gametogenesis and Health of ART-Offspring, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, (No.2021RU001), Jinan, Shandong, 250012, China

    Miaomiao Ban, Jiejing Jiao, Jiayi Zhou, Linlin Cui, Huidan Wang & Zi-Jiang Chen

  9. Department of Reproductive Medicine, Ren Ji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China

    Zi-Jiang Chen

  10. Shanghai Key Laboratory for Assisted Reproduction and Reproductive Genetics, Shanghai, China

    Zi-Jiang Chen

  11. Center for Reproductive Medicine, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, 157 Jingliu Road, Jinan, Shandong, 250012, China

    Huidan Wang

Authors
  1. Miaomiao Ban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiejing Jiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiayi Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Linlin Cui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Huidan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Zi-Jiang Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.B. contributed to studying design, data analyses and writing the main manuscript text. J.J. and J.Z. performed data collection. L.C. and Z.C. conducted supervision. H.W. conducted a review of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huidan Wang.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

The study involving human participants was reviewed and approved by the Reproductive Medicine Ethics Committee, Hospital for Reproductive Medicine Affiliated to Shandong University in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. The ethics approval number was No. 2023 (51).

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ban, M., Jiao, J., Zhou, J. et al. Association of age at menarche and different causes of infertility: a retrospective study of 7634 women undergoing assisted reproductive technology. J Ovarian Res 18, 40 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13048-025-01629-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s13048-025-01629-y

Keywords

Journal of Ovarian Research

ISSN: 1757-2215

Contact us