2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinical and biochemical discriminants between functional hypothalamic amenorrhoea (FHA) and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references149

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)

          (2004)
          Since the 1990 NIH-sponsored conference on polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), it has become appreciated that the syndrome encompasses a broader spectrum of signs and symptoms of ovarian dysfunction than those defined by the original diagnostic criteria. The 2003 Rotterdam consensus workshop concluded that PCOS is a syndrome of ovarian dysfunction along with the cardinal features hyperandrogenism and polycystic ovary (PCO) morphology. PCOS remains a syndrome and, as such, no single diagnostic criterion (such as hyperandrogenism or PCO) is sufficient for clinical diagnosis. Its clinical manifestations may include: menstrual irregularities, signs of androgen excess, and obesity. Insulin resistance and elevated serum LH levels are also common features in PCOS. PCOS is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular events.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome † ‡

            Abstract STUDY QUESTION What is the recommended assessment and management of women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), based on the best available evidence, clinical expertise and consumer preference? SUMMARY ANSWER International evidence-based guidelines, including 166 recommendations and practice points, addressed prioritized questions to promote consistent, evidence-based care and improve the experience and health outcomes of women with PCOS. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Previous guidelines either lacked rigorous evidence-based processes, did not engage consumer and international multidisciplinary perspectives, or were outdated. Diagnosis of PCOS remains controversial, and assessment and management are inconsistent. The needs of women with PCOS are not being adequately met and evidence practice gaps persist. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION International evidence-based guideline development engaged professional societies and consumer organizations with multidisciplinary experts and women with PCOS directly involved at all stages. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II-compliant processes were followed, with extensive evidence synthesis. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was applied across evidence quality, feasibility, acceptability, cost, implementation and ultimately recommendation strength. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Governance included a six continent international advisory and a project board, five guideline development groups, and consumer and translation committees. Extensive health professional and consumer engagement informed guideline scope and priorities. Engaged international society-nominated panels included pediatrics, endocrinology, gynecology, primary care, reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics, psychiatry, psychology, dietetics, exercise physiology, public health and other experts, alongside consumers, project management, evidence synthesis and translation experts. In total, 37 societies and organizations covering 71 countries engaged in the process. Twenty face-to-face meetings over 15 months addressed 60 prioritized clinical questions involving 40 systematic and 20 narrative reviews. Evidence-based recommendations were developed and approved via consensus voting within the five guideline panels, modified based on international feedback and peer review, with final recommendations approved across all panels. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The evidence in the assessment and management of PCOS is generally of low to moderate quality. The guideline provides 31 evidence based recommendations, 59 clinical consensus recommendations and 76 clinical practice points all related to assessment and management of PCOS. Key changes in this guideline include: (i) considerable refinement of individual diagnostic criteria with a focus on improving accuracy of diagnosis; (ii) reducing unnecessary testing; (iii) increasing focus on education, lifestyle modification, emotional wellbeing and quality of life; and (iv) emphasizing evidence based medical therapy and cheaper and safer fertility management. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Overall evidence is generally low to moderate quality, requiring significantly greater research in this neglected, yet common condition, especially around refining specific diagnostic features in PCOS. Regional health system variation is acknowledged and a process for guideline and translation resource adaptation is provided. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The international guideline for the assessment and management of PCOS provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice based on the best available evidence, expert multidisciplinary input and consumer preferences. Research recommendations have been generated and a comprehensive multifaceted dissemination and translation program supports the guideline with an integrated evaluation program. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was primarily funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) supported by a partnership with ESHRE and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guideline development group members did not receive payment. Travel expenses were covered by the sponsoring organizations. Disclosures of conflicts of interest were declared at the outset and updated throughout the guideline process, aligned with NHMRC guideline processes. Full details of conflicts declared across the guideline development groups are available at https://www.monash.edu/medicine/sphpm/mchri/pcos/guideline in the Register of disclosures of interest. Of named authors, Dr Costello has declared shares in Virtus Health and past sponsorship from Merck Serono for conference presentations. Prof. Laven declared grants from Ferring, Euroscreen and personal fees from Ferring, Euroscreen, Danone and Titus Healthcare. Prof. Norman has declared a minor shareholder interest in an IVF unit. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. The guideline was peer reviewed by special interest groups across our partner and collaborating societies and consumer organizations, was independently assessed against AGREE-II criteria, and underwent methodological review. This guideline was approved by all members of the guideline development groups and was submitted for final approval by the NHMRC.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Overweight, obesity and central obesity in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

              BACKGROUND Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is closely associated with obesity but the prevalence of obesity varies between published studies. The objective of this research was to describe the prevalence of overweight, obesity and central obesity in women with and without PCOS and to assess the confounding effect of ethnicity, geographic regions and the diagnostic criteria of PCOS on the prevalence. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and PSYCINFO were searched for studies reporting the prevalence of overweight, obesity or central obesity in women with and without PCOS. Data were presented as prevalence (%) and risk ratio (RR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]. Random-effect models were used to calculate pooled RR. RESULTS This systematic review included 106 studies while the meta-analysis included 35 studies (15129 women). Women with PCOS had increased prevalence of overweight [RR (95% CI): 1.95 (1.52, 2.50)], obesity [2.77 (1.88, 4.10)] and central obesity [1.73 (1.31, 2.30)] compared with women without PCOS. The Caucasian women with PCOS had a greater increase in obesity prevalence than the Asian women with PCOS compared with women without PCOS [10.79 (5.36, 21.70) versus 2.31 (1.33, 4.00), P < 0.001 between subgroups). CONCLUSIONS Women with PCOS had a greater risk of overweight, obesity and central obesity. Although our findings support a positive association between obesity and PCOS, our conclusions are limited by the significant heterogeneity between studies and further studies are now required to determine the source of this heterogeneity. Clinical management of PCOS should include the prevention and management of overweight and obesity.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Clinical Endocrinology
                Clin Endocrinol
                Wiley
                0300-0664
                1365-2265
                August 2021
                January 19 2021
                August 2021
                : 95
                : 2
                : 239-252
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Section of Endocrinology and Investigative Medicine Hammersmith Hospital Imperial College London London UK
                [2 ]Department of Endocrinology Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust London UK
                [3 ]School of Computer Science University of St Andrews St Andrews UK
                Article
                10.1111/cen.14402
                33354766
                52d97101-5f96-4cce-9809-80a0a6aeba78
                © 2021

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article