Cited by 102Ovarian function and disordersGenetic and Kidney Cyst DiseasesReproductive Health and Technologies

A very large proportion of young Danish women have polycystic ovaries: is a revision of the Rotterdam criteria needed?

Kristensen, S. L., Ramlau-Hansen, C. H., Ernst, E., Olsen, S. F., Bonde, J. P., Vested, A., Toft, G.·2010·Human Reproduction

Abstract

BACKGROUND: According to the Rotterdam 2003 criteria, an ovary is defined as polycystic if 12 or more follicles of 2-9 mm are present, when evaluating the ovary by ultrasonography on Days 3-5 of the menstrual cycle in women not using hormonal contraceptives. The aim of this population-based study was to estimate the prevalence of polycystic ovaries (PCO) in a representative sample of young Danish women according to the Rotterdam criteria. METHODS: From a Danish pregnancy cohort established in 1988-1989, 267 (61%) young adult daughters agreed to participate in a clinical examination and 174 (40%) consented to vaginal ultrasound. Sufficient image quality in at least one ovary was obtained from 154 women. Both users and non-users of hormonal contraceptives were included and the examination was not restricted to a particular time of the menstrual cycle. RESULTS: The median (range) age was 20.1 (19.5-21.0) years. The median follicle number per ovary was 14 (6-30) and 12 or more follicles were counted in 104 of the 154 women. Thus, the prevalence was estimated to 68% [95% confidence interval (CI): 60-74%]. PCO were present in 80% (95% CI: 65-89%) of non-users (n = 44) of hormonal contraceptives. Of the 104 women with PCO, 41% (95% CI: 32-51%) could be defined as having polycystic ovary syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: A very large proportion of the young women had PCO according to the Rotterdam 2003 criteria. As the number of follicles is higher at a younger age, we believe the Rotterdam criteria should be revised, particularly to avoid misdiagnosis in this age group.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/deq273

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kristensen, S. L., Ramlau-Hansen, C. H., Ernst, E., Olsen, S. F., Bonde, J. P., Vested, A., & Toft, G.
Affiliations
  • Aarhus University Hospital (DK)
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • Statens Serum Institut (DK)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Kristensen, S. L.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2010-10-11
Volume
25
Issue
12
Pages
3117-3122
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2112721406
Cited by
102
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 8
FWCI
10.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian function and disorders
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and Kidney Cyst Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
Keywords
polycystic ovary, polycystic ovary syndrome, Rotterdam criteria, ovarian follicle count, prevalence, young women, hormonal contraception, misdiagnosis, diagnostic criteria revision
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Denmark, Female, Humans, Ovary, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, Ultrasonography, Prevalence, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review