4.3 Review

Mean platelet volume and polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/03000605211067316

Keywords

Polycystic ovary syndrome; mean platelet volume; meta-analysis; homoeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance; sensitivity analysis; pooled analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This meta-analysis reveals that women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have a significantly increased mean platelet volume (MPV) compared to women without PCOS, which may be associated with insulin resistance.
Objective This meta-analysis evaluated the association between the mean platelet volume (MPV) and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Methods A systematic literature search using PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases until June 2021 was conducted. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were determined using a random effects model. Results Ten studies involving 866 women with PCOS and 548 age- and body mass index-matched women without PCOS were included. The MPV was significantly increased in women with PCOS compared with non-PCOS women (SMD = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.13-0.72). Subgroup analyses showed that this trend was consistent in cross-sectional studies (SMD = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.03-0.86) and in Turkish women (SMD = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.13-0.79). Meta-regression analysis revealed a marginally positive correlation between the MPV and the homoeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance in women with PCOS. The sensitivity analysis showed that the effect estimate was robust and stable, and publication bias was not evidenced in the pooled analysis. Conclusions This meta-analysis revealed that women with PCOS have a significantly increased MPV than women without PCOS, which is probably associated with insulin resistance. INPLASY registration number: INPLASY2021100021.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available