4.6 Review

A meta-analysis of pregnancy-related outcomes and complications in women with polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing IVF

Journal

REPRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICINE ONLINE
Volume 39, Issue 2, Pages 281-293

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.03.203

Keywords

IVF; Polycystic ovary syndrome; Pregnancy complications; Pregnancy outcomes

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundations (NSFC) of China [81673276]
  2. Central South University [2018zzts237]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This meta-analysis aimed to study whether pregnancy-related outcomes and complications differed between patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and those with other causes of infertility who had undergone IVF. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Chinese databases was carried out to identify relevant studies published before July 2018. Outcomes were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses were also conducted. Twenty-nine studies were identified for inclusion. Women with PCOS had higher risks of miscarriage (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.04-1.91), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OR 4.96, 95% CI 3.73-6.60), gestational diabetes mellitus (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.43-4.98), pregnancy-induced hypertension (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.45-2.91), preterm birth (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.25-2.04) and large-for-gestational-age babies (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.01-4.37). Women with PCOS showed similar rates of clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, small for gestational age and congenital malformations, and a higher live birth rate, compared with women without PCOS. This study provides an update on and comprehensive evidence to support the observation that despite the fact that PCOS patients achieve a better live birth rate, physicians should continue to consider them to be at high risk of adverse pregnancy-related outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available