Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 459

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Updated ultrasound criteria for polycystic ovary syndrome: reliable thresholds for elevated follicle population and ovarian volume

Open access
Lujan, M. E., Jarrett, B. Y., Brooks, E. D., Reines, J. K., Peppin, A. K., Muhn, N., Haider, E., Pierson, R. A., Chizen, D. R.·2013·Human Reproduction

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: Do the ultrasonographic criteria for polycystic ovaries supported by the 2003 Rotterdam consensus adequately discriminate between the normal and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) condition in light of recent advancements in imaging technology and reliable methods for estimating follicle populations in PCOS? STUDY ANSWER: Using newer ultrasound technology and a reliable grid system approach to count follicles, we concluded that a substantially higher threshold of follicle counts throughout the entire ovary (FNPO)-26 versus 12 follicles-is required to distinguish among women with PCOS and healthy women from the general population. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The Rotterdam consensus defined the polycystic ovary as having 12 or more follicles, measuring between 2 and 9 mm (FNPO), and/or an ovarian volume (OV) >10 cm(3). Since their initial proposal in 2003, a heightened prevalence of polycystic ovaries has been described in healthy women with regular menstrual cycles, which has questioned the accuracy of these criteria and marginalized the specificity of polycystic ovaries as a diagnostic criterion for PCOS. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A diagnostic test study was performed using cross-sectional data, collected from 2006 to 2011, from 168 women prospectively evaluated by transvaginal ultrasonography. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to determine the appropriate diagnostic thresholds for: (i) FNPO, (ii) follicle counts in a single cross section (FNPS) and (iii) OV. The levels of intra- and inter-observer reliability when five observers used the proposed criteria on 100 ultrasound cases were also determined. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Ninety-eight women diagnosed with PCOS by the National Institutes of Health criteria as having both oligo-amenorrhea and hyperandrogenism and 70 healthy female volunteers recruited from the general population. Participants were evaluated by transvaginal ultrasonography at the Royal University Hospital within the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Saskatchewan (Saskatoon, SK, Canada) and in the Division of Nutritional Sciences' Human Metabolic Research Unit, Cornell University (Ithaca, NY, USA). MAIN RESULTS: Diagnostic potential for PCOS was highest for FNPO (0.969), followed by FNPS (0.880) and OV (0.873) as judged by the area under the ROC curve. An FNPO threshold of 26 follicles had the best compromise between sensitivity (85%) and specificity (94%) when discriminating between controls and PCOS. Similarly, an FNPS threshold of nine follicles had a 69% sensitivity and 90% specificity, and an OV of 10 cm(3) had a 81% sensitivity and 84% specificity. Levels of intra-observer reliability were 0.81, 0.80 and 0.86 when assessing FNPO, FNPS and OV, respectively. Inter-observer reliability was 0.71, 0.72 and 0.82, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Thresholds proposed by this study should be limited to use in women aged between 18 and 35 years. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Polycystic ovarian morphology has excellent diagnostic potential for detecting PCOS. FNPO have better diagnostic potential and yield greater diagnostic confidence compared with assessments of FNPS or OV. Whenever possible, images throughout the entire ovary should be collected for the ultrasonographic evaluation of PCOS. STUDY FUNDING AND COMPETING INTEREST: This study was funded by Cornell University and fellowship awards from the Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation and Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors have no conflict of interests to disclose.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/det062

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 459

Metadata

Authors
Lujan, M. E., Jarrett, B. Y., Brooks, E. D., Reines, J. K., Peppin, A. K., Muhn, N., Haider, E., Pierson, R. A., & Chizen, D. R.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2013-03-15
Volume
28
Issue
5
Pages
1361-1368
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2126453690
Cited by
459
References
1
FWCI
22.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Updated ultrasound criteria for polycystic ovary syndrome: reliable thresholds for elevated follicle population and ovarian volume. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/humrep/det062
The paper
Lujan, M. E., Jarrett, B. Y., Brooks, E. D., Reines, J. K., Peppin, A. K., Muhn, N., Haider, E., Pierson, R. A., & Chizen, D. R. (2013). Updated ultrasound criteria for polycystic ovary syndrome: reliable thresholds for elevated follicle population and ovarian volume. Human Reproduction. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det062

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.