Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a highly prevalent disorder effecting reproductive-aged women worldwide. This article addresses the evolution of the criteria used to diagnosis PCOS; reviews recent advances in the phenotypic approach, specifically in the context of the extended Rotterdam criteria; discusses limitations of the current criteria used to diagnosis, particularly when studying adolescents and women in the peri- and postmenopause; and describes significant strides made in understanding the epidemiology of PCOS. This review recognizes that although there is a high prevalence of PCOS, there is increased variability when using Rotterdam 2003 criteria, owing to limitations in population sampling and approaches used to define PCOS phenotypes. Last, we discuss the distribution of PCOS phenotypes, their morbidity, and the role that referral bias plays in the epidemiology of this syndrome.
Since the 1990 National Institutes of Health-sponsored conference on polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), it has become appreciated that the syndrome encompasses a broader spectrum of signs and symptoms of ovarian dysfunction than those defined by the original diagnostic criteria. The 2003 Rotterdam consensus workshop concluded that PCOS is a syndrome of ovarian dysfunction along with the cardinal features hyperandrogenism and polycystic ovary (PCO) morphology. PCOS remains a syndrome, and as such no single diagnostic criterion (such as hyperandrogenism or PCO) is sufficient for clinical diagnosis. Its clinical manifestations may include menstrual irregularities, signs of androgen excess, and obesity. Insulin resistance and elevated serum LH levels are also common features in PCOS. PCOS is associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular events.
Raperport C et al., 2024·BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
There is no consensus on tests required to either diagnose unexplained infertility or use for research inclusion criteria. This leads to heterogeneity and bias affecting meta-analysis and best practice advice. This systematic review analyses the variability of inclusion criteria applied to couples with unexplained infertility. We propose standardised criteria for use both in future research studies and clinical diagnosis. CINAHL and MEDLINE online databases were searched up to November 2022 for all published studies recruiting couples with unexplained infertility, available in full text in the English language. Data were collected in an Excel spreadsheet. Results were analysed per category and methodology or reference range. Of 375 relevant studies, only 258 defined their inclusion criteria. The most commonly applied inclusion criteria were semen analysis, tubal patency and assessment of ovulation in 220 (85%), 232 (90%), 205 (79.5%) respectively. Only 87/220 (39.5%) studies reporting semen analysis used the World Health Organization (WHO) limits. Tubal patency was accepted if bilateral in 145/232 (62.5%) and if unilateral in 24/232 (10.3%). Ovulation was assessed using mid-luteal serum progesterone in 115/205 (56.1%) and by a history of regular cycles in 87/205 (42.4%). Other criteria, including uterine cavity assessment and hormone profile, were applied in less than 50% of included studies. This review highlights the heterogeneity among studied populations with unexplained infertility. Development and application of internationally accepted criteria will improve the quality of research and future clinical care.
Restorative Care and Assisted Reproduction · Outcome Comparisons
Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) aims to restore fertility by diagnosing and treating the underlying causes of infertility. RRM is frequently promoted as an alternative to assisted reproductive technology (ART), despite uncertainty regarding its comparative effectiveness and safety. Where delayed childbearing and infertility are becoming more common, reliance on optimization of natural physiology alone may delay effective treatment and compromise reproductive outcomes. A systematic review of the current evidence comparing RRM to either ART or unassisted conception is, therefore, essential to inform clinical practice, guideline development, and shared decision-making for patients experiencing infertility. To assess the effectiveness and safety of RRM approaches, evaluated as a whole, rather than as individual components, compared with ART and medically unassisted conception in couples experiencing infertility. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and the Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine from inception to 28 November 2025. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized comparative studies evaluating reproductive and safety outcomes of RRM as a unified treatment, compared with either ART or expectant management (attempted medically unassisted conception). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We retrieved 724 records, of which 16 studies underwent full-text review. No RCTs or comparative observational studies were identified. All 16 full-text studies were excluded for an ineligible study design (no control group); most were cohort studies in which all participants underwent RRM. Ten studies reported reproductive outcomes; nine of these made claims regarding the benefits or effectiveness of RRM. None of these claims were supported by the study designs used, as the lack of a comparison group precludes reliable estimation of treatment effects. Consequently, these studies cannot provide valid estimates of RRM success rates, nor permit any meaningful inference about its effectiveness relative to unassisted conception or ART. Large-scale RCTs or prospective cohort studies reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes are required to inform evidence-based fertility guidelines. There are no comparative studies to support reliable estimates of the safety and effectiveness of RRM compared with ART or medically unassisted conception for couples experiencing infertility.
Guidelines by Clinical Area · Fertility and Infertility Guidelines
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: asrm@asrm.org et al., 2020·Fertility and sterility
Ovarian reserve is defined as the number of oocytes remaining in the ovary, or oocyte quantity (oocyte number). Markers of ovarian reserve include hormone levels and sonographically measured features of the ovaries. These markers can be useful as predictors of oocyte yield following controlled ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval. However, they are poor predictors of reproductive potential independently from age. This document replaces the document of the same name last published in 2012 (Fertil Steril 2012;98:1407-15).