4.7 Article

Differential rate in decline in ovarian reserve markers in women with polycystic ovary syndrome compared with control subjects: results of a longitudinal study

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 109, 期 3, 页码 526-531

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.11.012

关键词

Polycystic ovary syndrome; ovarian aging; antimullerian hormone; antral follicle count; longitudinal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To estimate rates of ovarian aging in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) subjects versus a community control population. Design: Longitudinal. Setting: Tertiary academic center. Subject(s): PCOS subjects diagnosed according to the 2004 Rotterdam criteria were systematically enrolled in a PCOS cohort study. The comparison control subjects were from the Ovarian Aging study, a prospective longitudinal study of ovarian aging in healthy women with regular menstrual cycles. Intervention(s): Clinical data collection over two study visits. Main Outcome Measure(s): Antral follicle count (AFC), ovarian volume (OV), and antimullerian hormone level (AMH). Result(s): PCOS subjects were found to have higher baseline values for all ovarian reserve markers compared with control subjects. Univariate models indicated that, compared with control subjects, PCOS patients experienced significantly faster rates of decline for both AFC and AMH. Change in OV did not differ significantly. To account for potential confounder effects, multiple analysis of covariance models were evaluated for the best fit, considering age, body mass index, and baseline ovarian reserve markers. Adjusted models demonstrated that PCOS patients do not experience a significant difference in AFC decline compared with control subjects, but they do experience a faster rate of decline in AMH (P<.01) and slower rate of decline in OV (P<.01). Conclusion(s): Ovarian aging in PCOS is characterized by a more rapid decline in AMH and a slower decline in OV compared with control subjects. (C) 2017 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.

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