4.2 Article

Serum kisspeptin levels in polycystic ovary syndrome: A meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY RESEARCH
卷 47, 期 6, 页码 2157-2165

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jog.14767

关键词

kisspeptin; meta‐ analysis; polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The meta-analysis revealed that serum kisspeptin levels were significantly higher in PCOS patients compared to non-PCOS patients, indicating a strong association between serum kisspeptin levels and PCOS.
Aim To clarify the association of serum kisspeptin levels in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) by meta-analysis. Methods Two English databases and two Chinese databases were searched for the relationship between kisspeptin and PCOS published from 2009. After the studies screening according to specific principles, we used STATA 12.0 for meta-analysis. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and its 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were used as the effect size and STATA 12.0 software was performed by this meta-analysis. Results Nine articles were included in the end, with a total of 1282 participants (699 patients and 583 controls). Heterogeneity between studies was statistically significant. Therefore, the random effects model was used to combine the effects. Meta-analysis showed statistically significant differences in serum kisspeptin levels between the PCOS patients and controls (SMD = 0.57, 95% CI [0.32, 0.82]), which indicated that there is a strong association between serum kisspeptin levels and PCOS. The source of high heterogeneity between the inclusion studies (I-2 = 73.2%) might be due to the small sample size. The larger variation of kisspeptin concentration might be caused by different diagnosis criteria of PCOS and short half-time period of kisspeptin combined with nonstandard testing process. Conclusion Serum kisspeptin levels in PCOS patients were higher than non-PCOS patients. It is a hint to indicate us that kisspeptin might be an independent biomarker of PCOS patients.

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

4.2
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