Reproductive Outcomes of Women with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Following In-Vitro Fertilization — A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is a common cause of infertility in women. In-vitro fertilization (IVF) is required in 20–30% of women with PCOS trying to conceive. This is associated with increased risk of multiple gestation and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Improvements in IVF techniques, safety standards, and the increased use of frozen embryos in recent years have lead to improved outcomes for women with PCOS. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare these outcomes with women without PCOS. Search Methods: A search of PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials, and Scopus databases for all articles published until November 16th, 2017 identified 21 studies comparing IVF outcomes in PCOS and non-PCOS women. Inclusion criteria were Rotterdam criteria PCOS, comparable IVF regimes, immediate IVF outcomes, and pregnancy outcomes. Studies were excluded if the control group included any PCOS criteria, donor oocytes, or in-vitro maturation. Outcomes: No difference was observed in live birth rate per cycle in women with vs. without PCOS (RR [Formula: see text] 1.01 [0.89, 1.16]; [Formula: see text] 82%), but the live birth rate per first cycle in PCOS cycles (RR [Formula: see text] 0.93 [0.88, 0.99]) was slightly lower. There was also no difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.02 [0.89, 1.17]) or biochemical pregnancy rate (RR 1.03 [0.99, 1.08]) observed between the two groups. PCOS was associated with a significantly higher number of oocytes retrieved (mean difference [Formula: see text] 3.6; 95% CI [2.8, 4.4]), risk of miscarriage (RR 2.90 [2.09, 4.02]), and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (RR 3.42 [2.28, 5.13]) per cycle. Conclusion: Despite a widespread perception of poor reproductive potential, women with PCOS experience IVF outcomes similar to those without PCOS. Although there is a slightly lower live birth rate during their first stimulation cycle, success rates are similar after multiple cycles. PCOS is associated with a higher risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Further studies are required to mitigate this risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".