Anti‐obesity pharmacological agents for polycystic ovary syndrome: A systematic review and meta‐analysis to inform the 2023 international evidence‐based guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This systematic review and meta‐analysis evaluated the efficacy of anti‐obesity agents for hormonal, reproductive, metabolic, and psychological outcomes in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) to inform the 2023 update of the International Evidence‐based Guideline on PCOS. We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL until July 2022 with a 10‐year limit to focus on newer agents. Eleven trials (545 and 451 participants in intervention and control arms respectively, 12 comparisons) were included. On descriptive analyses, most agents improved anthropometric outcomes; liraglutide, semaglutide and orlistat appeared superior to placebo for anthropometric outcomes. Meta‐analyses were possible for two comparisons (exenatide vs. metformin and orlistat + combined oral contraceptive pill [COCP] vs. COCP alone). On meta‐analysis, no differences were identified between exenatide versus metformin for anthropometric, biochemical hyperandrogenism, and metabolic outcomes, other than lower fasting blood glucose more with metformin than exenatide (MD: 0.10 mmol/L, CI 0.02–0.17, I 2 = 18%, 2 trials). Orlistat + COCP did not improve metabolic outcomes compared with COCP alone (fasting insulin MD: −8.65 pmol/L, −33.55 to 16.26, I 2 = 67%, 2 trials). Published data examining the effects of anti‐obesity agents in women with PCOS are very limited. The role of these agents in PCOS should be a high priority for future research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".