Clinical practice guidelines on polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis

Abstract

Clinical practice guidelines on polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and comparative meta-analysis J. Dun1, X. Wang2, J. Yang1, J. Xu1; 1Department of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Fujian Provincial Maternity and Children’s Hospital, Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou (P.R. China) 2Department of Gynecology, Guangdong Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou (P.R. China) Summary Objective: This study used a systematic review to evaluate the clinical guidelines for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) to guide clinical applications. Materials and Methods: PCOS guidelines were electronically retrieved from Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, and VIP. The time span for the search extended until December 2016. Two researchers searched the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and applied appraisal of guidelines research and evaluation II (AGREE II) to evaluate the quality of the guidelines. In the case of disagreement the results were discussed with experts in obstetrics and gynecology. Results: Sixteen clinical guidelines were included in this study. The study years ranged from 2004-2016. Average scores from five domains were 65.62%, 62.15%, 46.55%, 91.15%, and 41.01%. The data distribution in the sixth domain was abnormal. One guideline included “strongly recommended,” 13 guidelines included “revise and improve the recommendation,” and 2 guidelines included “not recommended.” Sixteen guidelines involved diagnoses of infertility, metabolic and cardiovascular diseases, health problems, and longterm complications. Conclusion: It has been suggested that an evidence-based medical approach be used to develop clinical guidelines. The quality of guidelines from China should help to develop and improve high-quality care and shorten the gap in the international development. Key words: Polycystic ovary syndrome; Guideline; Systematic review; AGREE II; Meta-analysis.