Evidence Hub

Correlation of Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Phenotypes With Pregnancy and Neonatal Outcomes

Chan JL, Legro RS, Eisenberg E, Pisarska MD, Santoro N

Obstetrics and gynecology, 2024

1,376 participants · 8 citations

Abstract

Objective: To compare pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in women with hyperandrogenic polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) phenotypes compared with nonhyperandrogenic PCOS phenotypes.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of participants in the PPCOS (Pregnancy in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome) I and II randomized controlled trials; all of the participants met the National Institutes of Health diagnostic criteria for PCOS and were then sorted into three of the four Rotterdam criteria categories based on medical interview, demographics, physical examination, and laboratory data. The two hyperandrogenic (A and B) Rotterdam categories were compared with the nonhyperandrogenic phenotype of PCOS (phenotype D). Our outcomes of interest were clinical pregnancy, pregnancy loss, live birth, obstetric complications (including preterm labor, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, intrauterine growth restriction, and premature rupture of membranes), and neonatal outcomes (including jaundice, respiratory distress syndrome, neonatal hospitalization, and neonatal infection).

Results: Of the 1,376 participants included in the study, 1,249 (90.8%) had hyperandrogenic PCOS phenotypes compared with 127 (9.2%) nonhyperandrogenic PCOS (nonhyperandrogenic PCOS). Compared with participants with nonhyperandrogenic PCOS, those with hyperandrogenic PCOS had higher body mass index (BMI) (35.5±8.9 vs 31.9±9.3 kg/m 2 , P <.001), fasting insulin (21.6±27.7 vs 14.7±15.0 micro-international units/mL, P…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 1,376 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free