Cited by 415Ovarian function and disordersDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsGenetic and Kidney Cyst Diseases

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 84 of the 84 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 8 of the 43 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Insulin resistance in polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of euglycaemic–hyperinsulinaemic clamp studies

Open access

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION: What is the degree of intrinsic insulin resistance (IR) in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and the relative contribution of BMI to overall IR based on meta-analysis of gold standard insulin clamp studies? SUMMARY ANSWER: We report an inherent reduction (-27%) of insulin sensitivity (IS) in PCOS patients, which was independent of BMI. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: PCOS is prevalent, complex and underpinned by IR but controversies surround the degree of intrinsic IR in PCOS, the effect of BMI and the impact of the different diagnostic criteria (NIH versus Rotterdam) in PCOS. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic review and meta-analysis of Medline and All EBM databases was undertaken of studies published up to 30 May 2015. Studies were included if premenopausal women diagnosed with PCOS were compared with a control group for IS, measured by the gold standard euglycaemic-hyperinsulinaemic clamp. The systematic review adheres to the principles of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Meta-analyses were performed using mixed modelling and magnitude-based inferences expressed as mean effect ±99% CI. We inferred the effect was small, moderate or large relative to a smallest important change of -3.7% or 3.8% derived by standardisation. Effects were deemed unclear when the CI overlapped smallest important positive and negative values. Effects were qualified with probabilities reflecting uncertainty in the magnitude of the true value (likely, 75-95%; very likely, 95-99.5%; most likely, >99.5%). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHOD: A total of 4881 articles were returned from the search. Of these, 28 articles were included in the meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Overall IS was lower in women with PCOS compared with controls (mean effect -27%, 99% CI ±6%; large, most likely lower). A higher BMI exacerbated the reduction in IS by -15% (±8%; moderate, most likely lower) in PCOS compared with control women. There was no clear difference in IS between women diagnosed by the original National Institutes of Health (NIH) criteria alone compared with those diagnosed by the Rotterdam criteria. Low levels of sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) were associated with reduced levels of IS (-10%, ±10%; small, very likely negative), which was not confounded by BMI. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This systematic review and meta-analysis inherited the confounding problems of small sample sizes, missing data (e.g. some hormones, waist and hip girths) and the lack of Rotterdam criteria phenotype reporting, limiting the evidence synthesis and meta-analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: BMI has a greater impact on IS in PCOS than in controls. SHBG appears a potentially valuable marker of IR in PCOS, whereas testosterone after adjustment for BMI demonstrated an unexpected interplay with IS which warrants further investigation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work was supported by grants from the National Health & Medical Research Council (NHMRC), grant number 606553 (H.J.T., N.K.S.), as well as Monash University. H.J.T. is an NHMRC Research Fellow. N.K.S. is supported through the Australian Government's Collaborative Research Networks (CRN) programme. The funding bodies played no role in the design, methods, data management or analysis or in the decision to publish. All authors declare no conflict of interests. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/dew243

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

8 of 43 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 34 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 25
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 18
39 of 39
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The relationships between BMI and insulin sensitivity and between age and insulin sensitivity are linear in the meta-analytic models.

    “Fixed effects in the model were either linear numeric variables for BMI and age or a nominal variable for the diagnostic criteria (NIH or Rotterdam).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The diagnostic criteria groupings (NIH versus Rotterdam) are valid surrogates for PCOS phenotype.

    “Moderating effects of diagnostic criteria as a surrogate for phenotype”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Low SHBG is associated with adverse cardiovascular risk factors, diabetes and metabolic syndrome, independent of obesity.

    “Furthermore, low SHBG is associated with adverse cardiovascular risk factors, diabetes and metabolic syndrome, independent of obesity, all important clinical implications of IR in PCOS, suggesting that SHBG may also be a useful clinical marker of metabolic risk in PCOS.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Little prior PCOS literature has reported by phenotype.

    “However, little prior PCOS literature has reported by phenotype, necessitating analysis here by diagnostic criteria as a proxy.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Prior studies suggest that women with an NIH diagnosis of PCOS are more insulin resistant than those diagnosed via Rotterdam criteria.

    “Prior studies suggest that women with an NIH diagnosis of PCOS are more IR than those diagnosed via Rotterdam criteria.”
5 of 5

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Adjusted age effect is called both trivial and small

    Minor

    The discussion calls the BMI- and diagnosis-adjusted age impact trivial, while Table IV labels the corresponding older-versus-younger PCOS effect small and unclear.

  • Conclusion reverses the PCOS and control sample counts

    Minor

    The conclusion assigns 741 participants to PCOS and 1224 to controls; the search-results account assigns those same counts to controls and PCOS, respectively.

  • Adjusted BMI effect has the wrong magnitude label

    Minor

    The paper sets −31% as the threshold for a very large reduction, but labels the adjusted −30% BMI-subgroup effect "Very large." At the reported value, it falls in the large category.

  • Reported age variation is incompatible with the eligibility range

    Minor

    The table gives one group of eight participants a mean age of 25 years and an age SD of 20 years. An SD that large is impossible if every participant was between 18 and 40 years old, as the selection criteria require.

  • Two thresholds are given for a very large improvement

    Minor

    The inferential-statistics section places the very-large improvement threshold at 46%, but the Figure 3 caption places it at 48%.

5 of 5

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Yang M . A Review of Random Effects Modelling in SAS (Release 8.2). London: London, Centre for Multilevel Modelling, 2003.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 415

Metadata

Authors
Cassar, S., Misso, M. L., Hopkins, W. G., Shaw, C. S., Teede, H. J., & Stepto, N. K.
Affiliations
  • Monash Health (AU)
  • Deakin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Stepto, Nigel K.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Published
2016-10-07
Volume
31
Issue
11
Pages
2619-2631
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
OpenAlex
W2528179062
Cited by
415
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 54 · 2025: 51 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 1
FWCI
3.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Reproduction (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Victoria University Research Repository (Victoria University) (submittedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Government
  • Monash University
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (606553)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian function and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic and Kidney Cyst Diseases
Keywords
polycystic ovary syndrome, insulin resistance, insulin sensitivity, body mass index, hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp, PCOS diagnostic criteria, NIH criteria, Rotterdam criteria, sex hormone-binding globulin, hyperandrogenism, hyperinsulinemia, hypertriglyceridemia, hyperlipidemia, hyperuricemia, hyperoestrogenism
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Insulin Resistance, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, Glucose Clamp Technique, Body Mass Index

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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