Evidence mapPaperPMID 33409871Full record

SynthesisReproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2022

Gut Microbiota in Patients with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: a Systematic Review.

Jingbo Guo, Jie Shao, Yuan Yang, Xiaodan Niu, Juan Liao, Qing Zhao, Donghui Wang, Shuaitong Li, Junping Hu

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

51 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. SalivaryDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome: A Review of Multi-omics Analyses.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jingbo GuoSchool of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Jie ShaoSchool of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Yuan YangThe Reproductive Medicine Special Hospital of the 1st Hospital of Lanzhou University, Key Laboratory for Reproductive Medicine and Embryo, Lanzhou, China.
Xiaodan NiuSchool of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Juan LiaoSchool of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Qing ZhaoSchool of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Donghui WangSchool of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Shuaitong LiSchool of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Junping HuSchool of Nursing, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China. szhl18hujp@163.com.ORCID 0000-0003-1412-6950
Lanzhou University · CNInstitut de Médecine de la Reproduction · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polycystic ovary Syndrome (PCOS) is one of the most popular diseases that cause menstrual dysfunction and infertility in women. Recently, the relationships between the gastrointestinal microbiome and metabolic disorders such as obesity, type 2 diabetes and PCOS have been discovered. However, the association between the gut microbiome and PCOS symptoms has not been well established. We systematically reviewed existing studies comparing gut microbial composition in PCOS and healthy volunteers to explore evidence for this association. A systematic search was carried out in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception to May 26, 2020, for all original cross-sectional, cohort, or case-control studies comparing the fecal microbiomes of patients with PCOS with microbiomes of healthy volunteers (controls). The primary outcomes were differences in specific gut microbes between patients with PCOS and controls. The search identified 256 citations; 10 studies were included. The total population study of these articles consists of 611 participants (including PCOS group and healthy controls group). Among the included 10 studies, nine studies compared α-diversity, and six studies demonstrated that α-diversity has a significant reduction in PCOS patients. Seven of them reported that there was a significant difference of β-diversity composition between healthy controls groups and PCOS patients. The most common bacterial alterations in PCOS patients included Bacteroidaceae, Coprococcus, Bacteroides, Prevotella, Lactobacillus, Parabacteroides, Escherichia/Shigella, and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii. No consensus has emerged from existing human studies of PCOS and gut microbiome concerning which bacterial taxa are most relevant to it. In this systematic review, we identified specific bacteria associated with microbiomes of patients with PCOS vs controls. Higher level of evidence is needed to determine whether these microbes are a product or cause of PCOS.

Indexed as

DysbiosisFemaleGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansPolycystic Ovary SyndromeComparisonDysbiosisMicrobiotaPolycystic ovary syndromeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33409871
OpenAlexW3120816772

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.