| Literature DB >> 31615559 |
Zeng-Hong Wu1,2, Yun Tang3, Xun Niu1, Fei-Fei Pu4, Xi-Yue Xiao5, Wen Kong6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a reproductive endocrine disorder, clinically characterized by oligo-ovulation/chronic anovulation, menstrual irregularities, hyperandrogenism (such as hirsutism, acne), hyperinsulinemia, and obesity. Prostatic-specific antigen (PSA) has been identified as a potential new marker in PCOS women. Although the precise role of PSA in PCOS patients still remains undetermined, PSA might serve as a useful clinical marker and might even represent a new diagnostic criterion of hyperandrogenemia in females of PCOS.Entities:
Keywords: Meta-analysis; PCOS; Prostatic-specific antigen
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31615559 PMCID: PMC6792233 DOI: 10.1186/s13048-019-0569-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ovarian Res ISSN: 1757-2215 Impact factor: 4.234
Fig. 1Search strategy to identify articles on the relationship between polycystic ovary syndrome and prostatic specific antigen levels
Description of included studies
| Source | Year | Country | Sample Size (PCOS/CG) | Study design | Mean BMI (kg/m2) | Mean Age, y | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCOS | CG | PCOS | CG | |||||
| Bahceci et al. [ | 2004 | Turkey | 30/30 | Case-control | 22.8 ± 5 | 21 ± 2.4 | 22.4 ± 3.9 | 22.7 ± 1.4 |
| Bili et al. [ | 2014 | Greece | 43/40 | Case-control | 24.9 ± 5.9 | 22.7 ± 3.7 | 28.9 ± 5.0 | 30.8 ± 4.3 |
| Gullu et al. [ | 2003 | Turkey | 33/20 | Case-control | 26.04 ± 7.70 | 24.13 ± 6.67 | 23.04 ± 4.64 | 27.92 ± 7.81 |
| Mardanian et al. [ | 2011 | Iran | 32/32 | Case-control | 24.78 ± 2.96 | 23.19 ± 2.24 | 26.38 ± 4.8 | 27.1 ± 4.9 |
| Tokmak et al. [ | 2018 | Turkey | 42/47 | Case-control | 23.8 ± 4.6 | 20.8 ± 2.9 | 19 ± 2 | 18 ± 3 |
| Ukinc A et al. [ | 2009 | Turkey | 42/35 | Case-control | 26.35 ± 7.05 | 26.1 ± 6.9 | 23.29 ± 5.95 | 25.4 ± 5.0 |
| Ukinc B et al. [ | 2009 | Turkey | 20/35 | Case-control | 25.55 ± 5.29 | 26.1 ± 6.9 | 25.45 ± 9.36 | 25.4 ± 5.0 |
| Vural et al. [ | 2007 | Turkey | 43/43 | Case-control | 23.45 ± 4.70 | 21.52 ± 3.01 | 21.4 ± 1.88 | 20.8 ± 2.28 |
Free androgen index (FAI) = total testosterone (TT)*100/sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG)
Data are expressed as mean ± SD
Abbreviations: PCOS Polycystic ovary syndrome, CG Control group, NG Not given, BMI Body mass index, PSA Prostatic specific antigen, LH Luteinizing hormone, FSH Follicle stimulating hormone
aData included total PSA and free PSA
bData included two subgroups PCOS patients: anovulatory PCOS (Group A) and ovulatory PCOS (Group B)
Fig. 2Relationship between PCOS with serum PSA levels. Calculation based on random effects model. Results are expressed as standard mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Bahceci and Gullu’s study included total PSA (Group A) and free PSA (Group B); Ukinc’s study included two subgroups PCOS patients: anovulatory PCOS and ovulatory PCOS patients (total PSA: Group A vs Group B; free OSA: Group C vs Group D)
Results of subgroup analysis among PCOS vs controls
| Subgroup | Studies Included (N) | Sample size (PCOS/CG) | Chi square ( | Pooled Overall SMD (95% CI) | Heterogeneity ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total PSA | 8 | 285/247 | 26.98 (7) | .001 | 0.84 (0.49–1.19) | 74 |
| Free PSA | 5 | 168/125 | 5.38 (4) | .001 | 0.76 (0.53–0.99) | 26 |
| BMI ≥ 25 | 6 | 190/110 | 4.50 (5) | .001 | 0.76 (0.54–0.97) | 0 |
| BMI < 25 | 7 | 263/262 | 27.83 (6) | .001 | 0.87 (0.48–1.26) | 78 |
| Age ≥ 25 | 5 | 158/182 | 3.43 (4) | .001 | 0.84 (0.62–1.07) | 0 |
| Age < 25 | 8 | 295/260 | 28.45 (7) | .001 | 0.78 (0.42–1.14) | 75 |
| Free testosterone | 9 | 292/217 | 28.78 (8) | .001 | 0.80 (0.47–1.13) | 72 |
| LH/FSH | 6 | 199/145 | 0.68 (5) | .001 | 0.95 (0.74–1.15) | 0 |
| FAI | 4 | 146/140 | 10.65 (3) | .001 | 1.02 (0.55–1.50) | 72 |
Methodological assessment according to the Newcastle–Ottawa scale
| Study | Selection | Comparability | Outcome | Total scorea | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Representativeness | Selection | Ascertainment | Outcome of interest | Assessment | FU | Adequacy of FU | |||
| Bahceci et al. [ | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * | 9 |
| Bili et al. [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 |
| Gullu et al. [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 |
| Mardanian et al. [ | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | – | 8 |
| Tokmak et al. [ | * | * | * | * | ** | * | * | * | 9 |
| Ukinc A et al. [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 |
| Ukinc B et al. [ | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 8 |
| Vural et al. [ | – | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | 7 |
– indicates no stars
FU Follow-up
aWe considered a study to be of high quality when the total score was eight or nine stars, moderate quality when the total score was six or seven stars, and low quality when the total score was five stars or fewer