4.7 Article

Diabetes risk score in the diagnostic categories of polycystic ovary syndrome

Journal

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
Volume 95, Issue 5, Pages 1742-1748

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.01.133

Keywords

Polycystic ovary syndrome; diagnostic categories; type 2 diabetes mellitus

Funding

  1. Diabetes Australia Research Trust (Australia)
  2. Jean Hailes Foundation (Australia)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess the Finnish Diabetes Risk Score in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and in different phenotypes of PCOS and controls. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: General community. Patient(s): Overweight premenopausal women with National Institutes of Health (NIH) PCOS (n = 29), non-NIH PCOS (n = 25), or controls (n = 27). Intervention(s): No intervention provided. Main Outcome Measure(s): Finnish Diabetes Risk Score, anthropometrics, oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), glucose, insulin, and reproductive hormone levels. Result(s): The women with NIH PCOS had higher adiposity, abdominal adiposity and 120-minute OGTT glucose. The women with NIH and non-NIH PCOS had elevated 120-minute OGTT insulin compared with controls. The women with NIH (11.3 +/- 0.7) and non-NIH PCOS (10.4 +/- 0.7) had similar diabetes risk scores, but both had higher diabetes risk score compared with controls (7.6 +/- 0.8) maintained on adjustment for age and body mass index (BMI). The women with NIH (4%) and non-NIH PCOS (12%) had a lower prevalence of low risk of diabetes scores compared with controls (50%). Conclusion(s): We report for the first time that women with NIH and non-NIH PCOS have similar Finnish Diabetes Risk Scores and elevated scores relative to controls independent of age and adiposity. Similar clinical screening and treatment practices for type 2 diabetes are warranted for both phenotypes of PCOS. (Fertil Steril (R) 2011;95:1742-8. (C)2011 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available