Depression, anxiety and self-esteem in adolescent girls with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Studies have shown the adverse psychological impact of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), but the state of mental health in adolescents with PCOS remains unclear. Thus, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the prevalence and severity of depression and anxiety, as well as potential effects on self-esteem and quality of life (QoL) in this specific population. Methods: We systematically searched four electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Reviews database for articles published until 25/8/2024. We considered observational studies in which the subjects were adolescent girls with PCOS who had reported symptoms including anxiety, depression, self-esteem, and QoL. The Review Manager version 5.4 was used to analyze the available data extracted. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) to evaluate the quality of selected studies. A funnel plot was utilized to assess the risk of literature bias, and a forest plot was used to represent the combined outcomes. This systematic review was previously registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42022382036. Results: We included 11 studies in the systematic review and conducted meta-analyses on 10 of them. Adolescents with PCOS reported a higher risk of depression (OR = 2.21, 95% CI: 1.23 to 4.00, p = 0.008) and a higher level of depression scores (SMD = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.71, p = 0.002) than controls. There were no significant differences in anxiety (OR = 1.90, 95% CI: 0.52 to 6.96, p = 0.33; SMD = 0.19, 95% CI: -0.21 to 0.59, p = 0.36), self-esteem (SMD = -0.17, 95% CI: -0.85 to 0.52, p = 0.64), and QoL (SMD = -0.15, 95% CI: -0.42 to 0.11, p = 0.26) between the two groups. Conclusions: Our research indicated that adolescents with PCOS experienced more severe depressive symptoms than those without PCOS. This highlights the importance of evaluation and early treatment of mental health in PCOS. More clinicians should pay attention to the mental health of adolescent girls with PCOS through this study. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022382036.
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".