I just had to write this because I have read so much about AMH levels being the 'gold standard' of ovarian reserve testing and people getting very badly upset and freaked out by low level results...
In March 2010 I had an AMH test at Zita West clinic which came out at 5.04. This is "low" on the pmol/L scale. I was given quite a doom and gloom spiel about it and was very upset. The impression given is that AMH levels do not fluctuate in your cycle and they only get lower with age. Well, in my case - bullshit. Just had another test a few days ago and my AMH has gone UP (not by much, only to 8.6 ish), but still. I'm 37 so it's roughly what you'd expect for my age, maybe a bit lower.
I really think we should be told that this test is NOT necessarily accurate ( it may even vary from lab to lab) and is certainly not the definitive answer it's made out to be.
this is very interesting as my levels freaked me out because i was told they were low for my age. I never dared to look at the actual figure. Anyway great news yours went up. I have heard of people having very low amh and still getting pregnant naturally. And I agree , it just shows it isn't particularly accurate.
This is good news! I got my AMH result today, was devestated that it is 1.1. Too low. That was after getting a "really great" FSH and LH result a couple of weeks ago. But have heard that AMH is the new thing that doctors go by.
I only had it tested because I've recently had two miscarriages. So, obviously, despite my extremely low reserve, I have had a couple of eggs fertilised. I just wish they'd hang on. Still waiting for path results, so not sure if the quality of the eggs is a worry. I am 44, so shouldn't be surprised, just terribly disappointed.
Howfedupisup - did you do anything (diet, supplements etc) since your first AMH result, to change the number? That's a pretty impressive rise in the number.