Notwithstanding the potential public health impact of the polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), estimates regarding its prevalence are limited and unclear. Between July 1998 and October 1999, 400 unselected consecutive premenopausal women (18-45 yr of age) seeking a preemployment physical at the University of Alabama at Birmingham were studied (223 Black, 166 White, and 11 of other races). Evaluation included a history and physical examination, a modified Ferriman-Gallwey hirsutism score, and serum screening for hyperandrogenemia, hyperprolactinemia, and 21-hydroxylase-deficient nonclassical adrenal hyperplasia. PCOS was diagnosed by the presence of the following: 1) oligoovulation, 2) hyperandrogenemia and/or hirsutism (modified Ferriman-Gallwey score > or = 6), and 3) the exclusion of related disorders. Confirmed PCOS was established in those individuals whose evaluation was complete and indicative of PCOS, and possible PCOS was established when the hormonal evaluation was not complete or was unavailable, but the clinical phenotype was otherwise suggestive of the disorder. The individual probability of PCOS in women with possible PCOS was assigned a weight based on the findings in similar subjects whose evaluation was complete, and the total number of PCOS cases arising from these individuals was calculated (i.e. individual probability of PCOS x total number of subjects in the group). The cumulative prevalence of PCOS in our population was 6.6% (26.5 of 400), including 15 subjects among the 347 women completing their evaluation and a calculated prevalence of 11.5 subjects among the remainder. The prevalence rates of PCOS for Black and White women were 8.0 and 4.8%, respectively, not significantly different. These data from a large representative unselected population support the concept that PCOS is the most common endocrine abnormality of reproductive-aged women in the United States.

Objective: The Androgen Excess Society (AES) charged a task force to review all available data and recommend an evidence-based definition for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), whether already in use or not, to guide clinical diagnosis and future research. Participants: Participants included expert investigators in the field. Evidence: Based on a systematic review of the published peer-reviewed medical literature, by querying MEDLINE databases, we tried to identify studies evaluating the epidemiology or phenotypic aspects of PCOS. Consensus Process: The task force drafted the initial report, following a consensus process via electronic communication, which was then reviewed and critiqued by the AES Board of Directors. No section was finalized until all members were satisfied with the contents and minority opinions noted. Statements that were not supported by peer-reviewed evidence were not included. Conclusions: Based on the available data, it is the view of the AES Task Force on the Phenotype of PCOS that there should be acceptance of the original 1990 National Institutes of Health criteria with some modifications, taking into consideration the concerns expressed in the proceedings of the 2003 Rotterdam conference. A principal conclusion was that PCOS should be first considered a disorder of androgen excess or hyperandrogenism, although a minority considered the possibility that there may be forms of PCOS without overt evidence of hyperandrogenism but recognized that more data are required before validating this supposition. Finally, the task force recognized, and fully expects, that the definition of this syndrome will evolve over time to incorporate new research findings.

What is the recommended assessment and management of women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), based on the best available evidence, clinical expertise, and consumer preference? International evidence-based guidelines including 166 recommendations and practice points, addressed prioritized questions to promote consistent, evidence-based care and improve the experience and health outcomes of women with PCOS. Previous guidelines either lacked rigorous evidence-based processes, did not engage consumer and international multidisciplinary perspectives, or were outdated. Diagnosis of PCOS remains controversial and assessment and management are inconsistent. The needs of women with PCOS are not being adequately met and evidence practice gaps persist. International evidence-based guideline development engaged professional societies and consumer organizations with multidisciplinary experts and women with PCOS directly involved at all stages. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II-compliant processes were followed, with extensive evidence synthesis. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was applied across evidence quality, feasibility, acceptability, cost, implementation and ultimately recommendation strength. Governance included a six continent international advisory and a project board, five guideline development groups, and consumer and translation committees. Extensive health professional and consumer engagement informed guideline scope and priorities. Engaged international society-nominated panels included pediatrics, endocrinology, gynecology, primary care, reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics, psychiatry, psychology, dietetics, exercise physiology, public health and other experts, alongside consumers, project management, evidence synthesis, and translation experts. Thirty-seven societies and organizations covering 71 countries engaged in the process. Twenty face-to-face meetings over 15 months addressed 60 prioritized clinical questions involving 40 systematic and 20 narrative reviews. Evidence-based recommendations were developed and approved via consensus voting within the five guideline panels, modified based on international feedback and peer review, with final recommendations approved across all panels. The evidence in the assessment and management of PCOS is generally of low to moderate quality. The guideline provides 31 evidence based recommendations, 59 clinical consensus recommendations and 76 clinical practice points all related to assessment and management of PCOS. Key changes in this guideline include: i) considerable refinement of individual diagnostic criteria with a focus on improving accuracy of diagnosis; ii) reducing unnecessary testing; iii) increasing focus on education, lifestyle modification, emotional wellbeing and quality of life; and iv) emphasizing evidence based medical therapy and cheaper and safer fertility management. Overall evidence is generally low to moderate quality, requiring significantly greater research in this neglected, yet common condition, especially around refining specific diagnostic features in PCOS. Regional health system variation is acknowledged and a process for guideline and translation resource adaptation is provided. The international guideline for the assessment and management of PCOS provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice based on the best available evidence, expert multidisciplinary input and consumer preferences. Research recommendations have been generated and a comprehensive multifaceted dissemination and translation program supports the guideline with an integrated evaluation program. The guideline was primarily funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) supported by a partnership with ESHRE and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Guideline development group members did not receive payment. Travel expenses were covered by the sponsoring organizations. Disclosures of conflicts of interest were declared at the outset and updated throughout the guideline process, aligned with NHMRC guideline processes. Full details of conflicts declared across the guideline development groups are available at https://www.monash.edu/medicine/sphpm/mchri/pcos/guideline in the Register of disclosures of interest. Of named authors, Dr Costello has declared shares in Virtus Health and past sponsorship from Merck Serono for conference presentations. Prof. Laven declared grants from Ferring, Euroscreen and personal fees from Ferring, Euroscreen, Danone and Titus Healthcare. Prof. Norman has declared a minor shareholder interest in an IVF unit. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. The guideline was peer reviewed by special interest groups across our partner and collaborating societies and consumer organizations, was independently assessed against AGREEII criteria and underwent methodological review. This guideline was approved by all members of the guideline development groups and was submitted for final approval by the NHMRC.