Efficacy of Treatments for Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Management in Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited evidence on treatment options for polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) has led to considerable variation in health care practices. We aimed to compare the effects of metformin and/or oral contraceptive pills (OCP) in combination with pioglitazone, spironolactone, flutamide, and lifestyle interventions among adolescents aged 11 to 19 years with PCOS. Literature searches were performed in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception through December 2018, with no language restriction. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts, assessed full text eligibility, and extracted information from eligible trials. Evidence was synthesized through network meta-analyses (NMA) using a Bayesian random-effects approach. We identified 37 randomized controlled trials, in which 2400 patients were randomized. NMA showed no statistically important difference among all interventions to improve menstrual regulation or body mass index. Moderate-quality evidence showed hirsutism scores were reduced by multiple interventions that included single and combination medications namely; lifestyle intervention, metformin, OCP, spironolactone, pioglitazone, metformin-OCP, metformin-spironolactone, and metformin-flutamide against placebo. Moderate-quality evidence showed OCP results in more dysglycemia compared to metformin (odds ratio, 2.98; 95% credible interval, 1.02-8.96), no intervention resulted in dysglycemia reduction. In conclusion, metformin and OCP as monotherapy or in combination with other interventions compared with placebo can reduce hirsutism scores, but none of these medications lead to effective menstrual cycle regulation or weight reduction. However, the use of OCP leads to worse cardiometabolic risk factors. Further research into new treatment options is urgently needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015016148.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".