Evidence mapPaperPMID 35535684Full record

SynthesisHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2022

Where are we in understanding the natural history of polycystic ovary syndrome? A systematic review of longitudinal cohort studies.

Sylvia Kiconco, Chau Thien Tay, Kate Louise Rassie, Ricardo Azziz, Helena J Teede, Anju E Joham

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sylvia KiconcoMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4188-7755
Chau Thien TayMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Kate Louise RassieMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Ricardo AzzizDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3917-0483
Helena J TeedeMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Anju E JohamMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6307-2568
Monash Health · AUMonash University · AUUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionWhat is the natural history of reproductive, psychological and oncological features in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in comparison to those without PCOS across the life course? SUMMARY ANSWER: Existing longitudinal data on changes in reproductive, psychological and oncological features in PCOS are inadequate and conflicting, but the limited evidence suggests that total testosterone (T) and dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate (DHEAS) levels decline more significantly in women with PCOS than in those without PCOS, and the risk of gestational diabetes is higher in pregnant women with PCOS compared to their counterparts without PCOS. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The progression of reproductive, psychological and oncological features in PCOS remains unclear, which limits prevention and early diagnosis strategies across the lifespan. Understanding the natural history of PCOS is one of the overarching priorities in PCOS research. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a systematic review of longitudinal cohort studies with a narrative presentation of findings. Databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid PsycInfo, CINAHL PLUS and EBM reviews were searched between 15 January 2020 and 11 February 2021 with no language restrictions. Only studies published from the year 1990 to February 2021 were included. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsIn line with current guidelines for the assessment and management of PCOS, we included studies where participants were females with PCOS diagnosed according to the 2003 Rotterdam or the 1990 National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus criteria. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 21 longitudinal studies including 62 123 participants over four continents reported reproductive, psychological and/or oncological outcomes. Participants were females aged between 15 and 49 years at baseline, with follow-up periods ranging from 4 weeks to 32 years. Consistent evidence based on limited studies suggests that total T and DHEAS levels decline to a greater degree in women with PCOS compared to those without PCOS, and the risk gestational diabetes is higher in women with PCOS than in those without PCOS. Evidence reporting changes over time in the majority of the remaining outcomes was unclear due to conflicting and/or insufficient information. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: There was extreme heterogeneity between studies in terms of study setting, population characteristics, follow-up period, effect measures used and laboratory testing approaches. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsUnderstanding the natural history of PCOS and changes in diagnostic, reproductive, psychological and oncological features of PCOS across the lifespan is still a challenge and the existing literature is both limited and conflicting. It is important that future long-term prospective longitudinal studies are conducted in unselected and well-characterized populations. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This specific study was not funded. S.K. is supported by scholarships from the Research Training Program of the Commonwealth of Australia and Monash University; H.J.T. is supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council fellowship; and A.E.J. is supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council's Centre for Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproductive Life. R.A. was employed by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and is a consultant to Spruce Biosciences and Fortress Biotech. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. REGISTRATION NUMBER: Prospero registration number: CRD42020165546.

Indexed as

Diabetes, GestationalPolycystic Ovary SyndromeAustraliaChild, PreschoolCohort StudiesFemaleHumansInfantLongitudinal StudiesPregnancyProspective Studiesfollow-upnatural historyPCOSpolycystic ovary syndromepsychologicalreproductivereview

Identifiers

PMID35535684
PMCPMC9206535
OpenAlexW4225957403

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.