Evidence mapPaperPMID 37614710Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2023

A systematic review of models of care for polycystic ovary syndrome highlights the gap in the literature, especially in developing countries.

Eka Melson, Meri Davitadze, Kashish Malhotra, PCOS SEva working group, Aya Mousa, Helena Teede, Jacky Boivin, Mala Thondan, Chau Thien Tay, Punith Kempegowda

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

10 authors.

Eka MelsonLeicester Diabetes Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Meri DavitadzeDepartment of Diabetes and Endocrinology, Clinic NeoLab, Tbilisi, Georgia.
Kashish MalhotraInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
PCOS SEva working group
Aya MousaMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Helena TeedeMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jacky BoivinSchool of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom.
Mala ThondanPrimary Care, Harp Family Medical Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Chau Thien TayMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Punith KempegowdaInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of the study was to identify available polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) models of care (MoCs) and describe their characteristics and alignment with the international PCOS guideline. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, All EBM, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL were searched from inception until 11 July 2022. Any study with a description of a PCOS MoC was included. Non-evidence-based guidelines, abstracts, study protocols, and clinical trial registrations were excluded. We also excluded MoCs delivered in research settings to minimize care bias. Meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity across MoCs. We describe and evaluate each MoC based on the recommendations made by the international evidence-based guideline for assessing and managing PCOS. Results: Of 3,671 articles, six articles describing five MoCs were included in our systematic review. All MoCs described a multidisciplinary approach, including an endocrinologist, dietitian, gynecologist, psychologist, dermatologist, etc. Three MoCs described all aspects of PCOS care aligned with the international guideline recommendations. These include providing education on long-term risks, lifestyle interventions, screening and management of emotional well-being, cardiometabolic diseases, and the dermatological and reproductive elements of PCOS. Three MoCs evaluated patients' and healthcare professionals' satisfaction, with generally positive findings. Only one MoC explored the impact of their service on patients' health outcomes and showed improvement in BMI. Conclusion: There is limited literature describing PCOS MoCs in routine practice. Future research should explore developing cost-effective co-created multidisciplinary PCOS MoCs globally. This may be facilitated by the exchange of best practices between institutions with an established MoC and those who are interested in setting one up. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=346539, identifier CRD42022346539.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesPolycystic Ovary SyndromeEducational StatusEmotionsEndocrinologistsFemaleHumansmodel of caremultidisciplinary carePCOSpolycystic ovary syndromequality of life

Identifiers

PMID37614710
PMCPMC10443706

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.