Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38502188›Full record

ReviewArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024

PCOS phenotype focus: phenotype D under the magnifying glass.

Samuel H Myers, Mario Montanino Oliva, Maurizio Nordio, Vittorio Unfer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Delphi consensus on the diagnostic criteria of polycystic ovary syndrome.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2025
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Samuel H MyersR&D Department, Lo.Li. Pharma, 00156, Rome, Italy.
Mario Montanino OlivaThe Experts Group On Inositol in Basic and Clinical Research (EGOI), 00161, Rome, Italy.
Maurizio NordioThe Experts Group On Inositol in Basic and Clinical Research (EGOI), 00161, Rome, Italy.
Vittorio UnferThe Experts Group On Inositol in Basic and Clinical Research (EGOI), 00161, Rome, Italy. vunfer@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1805-3181

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is defined as the combination of polycystic morphology, hyperandrogenism, and ovulatory disruption; this heterogeneity presents a conundrum for the medical community. The Rotterdam criteria have governed the diagnosis of PCOS, separating the patient cohort into four distinct phenotypes. It has been suggested that the lone normoandrogenic phenotype, so-called phenotype D, should not be classified as a PCOS subtype, with phenotypes A, B, and C displaying a hyperandrogenic biochemical and clinical profile thought to be characteristic of PCOS. To understand how to treat phenotype D patients, this review shines a spotlight on the phenotype, gathering various reports of how phenotype D is differentiated from the other PCOS phenotypes.

Indexed as

HyperandrogenismPhenotypePolycystic Ovary SyndromeFemaleHumansAssisted reproductive technology (ART)HyperandrogenismPCOS phenotype DPCOS phenotype prevalencePolycystic ovary syndromeRotterdam criteria

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.