4.4 Article

Prevalence of metabolic syndrome in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

Journal

CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY
Volume 78, Issue 4, Pages 586-592

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/cen.12008

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and the metabolic syndrome (MetS) are common disorders that share many characteristics, particularly abdominal obesity and insulin resistance. Our objective was to compare the prevalence of MetS between a large cohort of patients with PCOS and body mass index -matched controls. Design Cross-sectional study. Patients We studied 1223 patients with PCOS and 277 healthy women. Diagnosis of PCOS was based on the revised Rotterdam criteria. Women with PCOS were divided into those who fulfilled both the Rotterdam criteria and the diagnostic criteria of the 1990 National Institutes of Health definition of PCOS (group 1, n=905) and into those with the additional phenotypes introduced by the Rotterdam criteria (group 2, n=318). Diagnosis of MetS was based on four different definitions. Measurements Anthropometric, metabolic, hormonal and ultrasonographic features of PCOS. Results The prevalence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) was higher in women with PCOS than in controls when the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III definition of MetS was applied (15 center dot 8% and 10 center dot 1%, respectively; P=0 center dot 021) but not with the three more recent MetS definitions. The prevalence of MetS was higher in group 1 than in controls regardless of the applied MetS definition. In contrast, the prevalence of MetS was similar in group 2 and in controls regardless of the applied MetS definition. In logistic regression analysis, PCOS did not predict the presence of MetS. Conclusions Polycystic ovary syndrome per se does not appear to increase the risk of MetS independent of abdominal obesity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available