4.7 Article

Follicle number, not assessments of the ovarian stroma, represents the best ultrasonographic marker of polycystic ovary syndrome

期刊

FERTILITY AND STERILITY
卷 101, 期 1, 页码 280-+

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.10.001

关键词

Polycystic ovary syndrome; ultrasound; follicle; stroma; hyperandrogenism

资金

  1. Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation
  2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare the diagnostic potential of ultrasonographic markers of ovarian morphology, used alone or in combination, to predict polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Design: A diagnostic test study using cross-sectional data collected from 2006-2011. Setting: Academic hospital and clinical research unit. Patient(s): Eighty-two women with PCOS and 60 healthy female volunteers. Intervention(s): None. Main Outcome Measure(s): Follicle number per ovary (FNPO), ovarian volume (OV), follicle number per single cross-section (FNPS), follicle distribution pattern, stromal area, ovarian area, stromal-to-ovarian area ratio (S: A), and stromal index (SI). Result(s): Follicle number per ovary best predicted PCOS (R-2 = 67%) with 85% sensitivity and 98% specificity, followed by OV (R-2 = 44%), and FNPS (R-2 = 36%). Neither S: A nor SI had predictive power for PCOS. In combination, FNPO+S:A and FNPO+SI most significantly predicted PCOS (R-2 = 74% vs. 73%, respectively). The diagnostic potentials of OV and FNPS were substantially improved when used in combination (OV+FNPO, R-2 = 55%). Conclusion(s): As a single metric, FNPO best predicted PCOS. Although the addition of S: A or SI improved the predictive power of FNPO, gains were marginal, suggesting limited use in clinical practice. When image quality precludes a reliable estimation of FNPO, measurements of OV+FNPS provide the next closest level of diagnostic potential. (Fertil Steril (R) 2014; 101: 280-7. (C) 2014 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