4.7 Article

Prevalence of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome in Women from Opposite-Sex Twin Pairs

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM
Volume 94, Issue 6, Pages 1987-1990

Publisher

ENDOCRINE SOC
DOI: 10.1210/jc.2009-0191

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) [985-10-002]
  2. NWO [VENI 451-06-004]
  3. Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Gynaecologie

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Intrauterine androgens of a male fetus may influence the female fetus in opposite-sex twin pairs. Because female intrauterine overexposure to androgens could lead to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), the prevalence of PCOS should be higher in women from opposite-sex twin pairs. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to evaluate the prevalence of PCOS in women from opposite-sex twin pairs compared to women from same-sex twin pairs, sisters, and female spouses of twins. Subjects and Methods: Data from 1325 monozygotic twins, 1191 dizygotic twins (711 women from same-sex twin pairs and 480 women from opposite-sex twin pairs), 745 sisters of twins, and 218 spouses of male twins were evaluated. PCOS was defined as less than nine natural menstrual cycles a year combined with either hirsutism or acne. The prevalence of PCOS was compared using a chi(2) test. Binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to test for confounding effects of smoking, age, and body mass index. Results: No significant differences in PCOS prevalence were found between women from same-sex twin pairs (either monozygotic or dizygotic), opposite-sex twin pairs, sisters, and spouses. Conclusion: The prevalence of PCOS is not different in women from opposite-sex and same-sex twin pairs, singleton sisters, or spouses. This indicates that possible androgen exposure of the female fetus, caused by a shared intrauterine environment with a male fetus, does not result in PCOS-like traits. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 94: 1987-1990, 2009)

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