IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0134696.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In Vitro Maturation in Women with vs. without Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Charalampos Siristatidis
  • Theodoros N Sergentanis
  • Paraskevi Vogiatzi
  • Prodromos Kanavidis
  • Charalampos Chrelias
  • Nikolaos Papantoniou
  • Theodora Psaltopoulou

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate in vitro maturation (IVM) in sub-fertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF), by comparing outcomes with a control group of non-PCOS. Study design: A search strategy was developed for PubMed and studies reporting rates of the following outcomes (live birth; clinical pregnancy; implantation; cycle cancellation; oocyte maturation; oocyte fertilization; miscarriage) between patients with PCOS, PCO and controls undergoing IVM were deemed eligible. The review was conducted in accordance to the PRISMA guidelines and included studies quality was assessed through the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality scale. ORs with their corresponding 95% CIs were calculated for the main analysis and subgroup analyses were performed for PCOS cases vs. controls and PCOS vs. PCO cases. Alternative analyses were performed for live birth and clinical pregnancy, based on cycles and on women. Subgroup analyses for FSH stimulation, hCG priming and type of procedure (IVF/ICSI) were undertaken for all meta-analyses encompassing at least four study arms. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled effect estimates. Results: Eleven studies were identified. A total of 268 PCOS patients (328 cycles), 100 PCO patients (110 cycles) and 440 controls (480 cycles) were included in the meta-analysis. A borderline trend towards higher birth rates among PCOS patients emerged (pooled OR = 1.74, 95%CI: 0.99–3.04) mainly reflected at the subgroup analysis vs. controls. Clinical pregnancy (pooled OR = 2.37, 95%CI: 1.53–3.68) and implantation rates (pooled OR = 1.73, 95%CI: 1.06–2.81) were higher, while cancellation rates lower (pooled OR = 0.18, 95%CI: 0.06-0.47) among PCOS vs. non-PCOS subjects; maturation and miscarriage rates did not differ between groups, while a borderline trend towards lower fertilization rates among PCOS patients was observed. Conclusion: The present meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence on the effectiveness of IVM as a treatment option when offered in sub-fertile PCOS women, as the latter present at least as high outcome rates as those in non-PCOS.

Suggested Citation

  • Charalampos Siristatidis & Theodoros N Sergentanis & Paraskevi Vogiatzi & Prodromos Kanavidis & Charalampos Chrelias & Nikolaos Papantoniou & Theodora Psaltopoulou, 2015. "In Vitro Maturation in Women with vs. without Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-19, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0134696
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134696
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134696
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0134696&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0134696?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0134696. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.