4.7 Review

The Role of Chronic Inflammation in Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22052734

关键词

polycystic ovarian syndrome; chronic inflammation; inflammatory markers; C-reactive protein; insulin resistance; obesity

资金

  1. Egyptian Cultural Center and Education bureau in London

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that circulating CRP levels are moderately elevated in women with PCOS, independent of obesity, indicating the presence of low-grade chronic inflammation.
Although the current literature associates polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) with chronic inflammation, the evidence for this link remains inconclusive and its causal nature remains unclear. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the inflammatory status in PCOS women and to determine whether it is related to PCOS or to its associated adiposity. We searched electronic databases including PUBMED, EMBASE and MEDLINE, SCOPUS, DynaMed plus, TRIP, ScienceDirect and Cochrane Library, for studies investigating C-reactive protein (CRP) and other inflammatory makers in PCOS women versus healthy controls. Quality and risk of bias for selected studies were assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. CRP data were extracted and pooled using RevMan for calculation of the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Eighty-five eligible studies were included in the systematic review, of which 63 were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of the 63 studies revealed significantly higher circulating CRP in PCOS women (n = 4086) versus controls (n = 3120) (SMD 1.26, 95%CI, 0.99, 1.53). Sensitivity meta-analysis of 35 high quality studies including non-obese women showed significantly higher circulating CRP in PCOS women versus controls (SMD 1.80, 95%CI, 1.36, 2.25). In conclusion, circulating CRP is moderately elevated in PCOS women independent of obesity, which is indicative of low-grade chronic inflammation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据