IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0358554.html

Impact of revised antral follicle count threshold on PCOS diagnosis: A comparative clinical study

Author

Listed:
  • Saloni Kamboj
  • Neena Malhotra
  • Reeta Mahey
  • Taruna Arora
  • Aditi Goyal
  • Snigdha Soni
  • Anshu Jyoti
  • Spondita Banerjee
  • Rintu Kutum

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the clinical impact of the revised antral follicle count (AFC) threshold on polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) diagnosis. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional observational study including women diagnosed using the Rotterdam criteria, stratified by AFC: 12–19 (low AFC) and ≥20 (high AFC). Clinical, metabolic, and hormonal parameters were compared against controls and amongst low and high AFC group. Results: Of 336 PCOS women, 208 (62%) had an AFC between 12 and 19 and would not meet the revised ≥20 follicle threshold for the diagnosis of polycystic morphology. These women had worse metabolic and androgenic profiles than controls, and were similar to the high AFC group. Conclusion: Excluding low AFC women may misclassify patients who require clinical care.

Suggested Citation

  • Saloni Kamboj & Neena Malhotra & Reeta Mahey & Taruna Arora & Aditi Goyal & Snigdha Soni & Anshu Jyoti & Spondita Banerjee & Rintu Kutum, 2026. "Impact of revised antral follicle count threshold on PCOS diagnosis: A comparative clinical study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 21(10), pages 1-11, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0358554
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0358554
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0358554
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0358554&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0358554?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:pone00:0358554. 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.