The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 30 of the 104 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Metformin and lifestyle modification in polycystic ovary syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Background Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common endocrine disorder with diverse reproductive and metabolic features. It is underpinned by insulin resistance that is exacerbated by obesity. Lifestyle modification is the first line treatment in PCOS, but it is associated with low adherence and sustainability. In small studies, metformin improves outcomes such as hyperinsulinaemia, ovulation and menstrual cyclicity. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effect of lifestyle modification + metformin with lifestyle modification ± placebo, and of metformin alone with lifestyle modification ± placebo in PCOS on anthropometric, metabolic, reproductive and psychological outcomes. Methods Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pubmed, Scopus, Cochrane, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Clinical Trials registry and ANZCTR were searched for RCTs conducted on humans and published in English up to August 2014. Inclusion criteria were diagnosis of PCOS based on Rotterdam criteria (inclusive of National Institutes of Health criteria) at any age and with any BMI. Interventions of interest included lifestyle + metformin (with any dose and any duration) or metformin alone compared with lifestyle ± placebo. Results Of 2372 identified studies, 12 RCTs were included for analysis comprising 608 women with PCOS. Lifestyle + metformin were associated with lower BMI (mean difference (MD) -0.73 kg/m(2), 95% confidence intervals (CI) -1.14, -0.32, P = 0.0005) and subcutaneous adipose ti…
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
39 Own result · 28 Own method · 14 Sources not found · 12 Not checked yet · 11 Partly supported · 10 No full text of the sources · 7 Own interpretation · 7 No basis given · 6 Supported · 6 Supported so far · 4 Couldn’t confirm · 2 Not supported · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“At study end (48 weeks), no subjects had IFG or IGT (Hoeger et al. , 2004).”
What the sources say
- Disputedcites Hoeger et al. , 2004 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Clinical and Metabolic Parameters passage (page unavailable) reports that two placebo subjects had elevated fasting or two-hour glucose at 48 weeks, contrary to the claim that no subjects did. It reports no such elevations in the three treatment groups, but does not separately classify subjects as having IFG or IGT. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Obesity further exacerbates hormonal and clinical reproductive, metabolic and psychological features of PCOS (Lim et al. , 2013).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Lim et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Principal findings report worse reproductive and metabolic outcomes in obese women with PCOS, with hirsutism as an exception. The Clinical implications section also describes worse psychological features, but the Psychological health section says obesity only appears to contribute and that no included studies reported psychological outcomes. The unqualified claim that obesity worsens psychological features overstates that evidence. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Duration of follow-up, except for two studies (Hoeger et al. , 2004; Gambineri et al. , 2006), was 6 months or shorter.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hoeger et al. , 2004 source
The study procedures specify assessments at 24 and 48 weeks, and the participant-flow passage reports that 23 subjects were evaluated at week 48. This confirms that Hoeger et al. was an exception to a six-month-or-shorter follow-up duration; the other studies named in the citing sentence are not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gambineri et al. , 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The number of menstrual cycles from 6 to 12 months was greater in the lifestyle + metformin compared with lifestyle + placebo groups (MD 1.38, 95% CI 0.47-2.29, P ¼ 0.003).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Hoeger et al., 2004 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Ovulation section (page not available) reports slightly more menstrual events over the 48-week study in the lifestyle-plus-metformin group than in the lifestyle-plus-placebo group (6.6 versus 6.2). It does not report menstrual-cycle counts specifically from 6 to 12 months or the claimed mean difference, confidence interval, and P value; its finding of no significant difference concerns ovulatory events, not menstrual cycles. (LLM, conf=0.82)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gambineri et al., 2006 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“The remaining four studies did not report significant differences in menstruation betweengroups (Tang et al. , 2006; Karimzadeh and Javedani, 2010; Ladson et al. , 2011a, b).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tang et al. , 2006 source
- Supportedcites Karimzadeh and Javedani, 2010 source
The Results section reports that menstrual-cycle improvement rates in the four treatment groups were not significantly different (P=.38). This supports the claim as it pertains to Karimzadeh and Javedani (2010); the other cited studies are outside this verdict. (LLM, conf=0.95)
- Not matchedcites Ladson et al. , 2011a, b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Two other systematic reviews on metformin alone compared with placebo or no intervention in PCOS, showed no effect on BMI (Lord et al. , 2003; Tang et al. , 2012).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Lord et al. , 2003 source
The Weight section reports no evidence of an effect of metformin on body mass index. The Methods section confirms that the review included trials in women with PCOS comparing metformin with placebo or no treatment. This verdict concerns Lord et al. only, not the separately cited review. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tang et al. , 2012 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“PCOShasbeenidentified by the International Diabetes Federation as an independent risk factor for DM2 (Alberti et al. , 2007); hence the role of metformin and lifestyle in preventing DM2 in PCOS is highly relevant.”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Alberti et al. , 2007 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Causes of diabetes and Other risk factors sections discuss type 2 diabetes risk factors, but the available passages do not mention PCOS or identify it as an independent risk factor. Searches for “PCOS,” “polycystic,” and “polycystic ovarian syndrome” found no such statement; the indexed copy of Table 1 contains only its heading and a partial header. (LLM, conf=0.70)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The Indian and US Diabetes Prevention studies, conducted in people with prior prediabetes or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and likely to include many women with PCOS, reported that metformin lowered weight and BMI and reduced progression to DM2 (Knowler et al. , 2002; Ramachandran et al. , 2006), with metformin more effective for women with prior GDM (Ratner et al. , 2008).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Ratner et al. , 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results passage (labeled Abstract in our copy) reports a 50.4% reduction in diabetes incidence with metformin among women with prior GDM, versus 14.4% among parous women without prior GDM. But the comparison was a trend (interaction P = 0.06), and the Discussion says metformin “may” be more effective; the claim states the difference as a fact. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The Indian and US Diabetes Prevention studies likely included many women with PCOS.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The Indian and US Diabetes Prevention studies, conducted in people with prior prediabetes or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and likely to include many women with PCOS, reported that metformin lowered weight and BMI and reduced progression to DM2 (Knowler et al. , 2002; Ramachandran et al. , 2006), with metformin more effective for women with prior GDM (Ratner et al. , 2008).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Knowler et al. , 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Ramachandran et al. , 2006 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Table 3 (Discussion; page unavailable) reports lower three-year diabetes incidence with metformin than with control among Asian Indian participants with impaired glucose tolerance. The citing sentence also attributes lower weight and BMI to this study, but the Results report no significant weight decrease in the metformin group. The study does not establish the result for people with prior gestational diabetes. (LLM, conf=0.89)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The Indian and US Diabetes Prevention studies likely included many women with PCOS.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were no differences in other anthropometric, metabolic (surrogate markers of insulin resistance, fasting and area under the curve glucose, lipids and blood pressure), reproductive (clinical and biochemical hyperandrogenism), and psychological (quality of life) outcomes after 6 months between lifestyle + metformin compared with lifestyle + placebo.”
plainn = 608- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 42
- Probably not a substantial claim. 31
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“The Indian and US Diabetes Prevention studies, conducted in people with prior prediabetes or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and likely to include many women with PCOS, reported that metformin lowered weight and BMI and reduced progression to DM2 (Knowler et al. , 2002; Ramachandran et al. , 2006), with metformin more effective for women with prior GDM (Ratner et al. , 2008).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Knowler et al. , 2002
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Disputedcites Ramachandran et al. , 2006 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion says the IDPP subjects did not lose weight. The Results report no significant change in body weight from baseline in the metformin group; the paper does not report that metformin lowered BMI or establish this outcome in people with prior GDM. It does report reduced progression from impaired glucose tolerance to diabetes. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The Indian and US Diabetes Prevention studies likely included many women with PCOS.
- Not matched
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“The dropout rate was not reported for one study (Karimzadeh and Javedani, 2010).”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Karimzadeh and Javedani, 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Table 2 report group sizes and pregnancy outcomes, but neither states a dropout rate. Searches for dropout, withdrawal, loss to follow-up, discontinuation, and attrition found no passage addressing whether a dropout rate was reported; the absence of a passage alone does not verify the claim. (LLM, conf=0.70)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Participants with DM2 but not glucose intolerance were excluded before randomization in all studies except for one (Hoeger et al. , 2008).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hoeger et al. , 2008 source
The Results (Single treatment trial, Baseline characteristics; page unavailable) report that a randomized participant had a two-hour glucose value consistent with diabetes, while others had impaired glucose tolerance. This supports citing Hoeger et al. as the exception: participants with diabetic-range glucose were not excluded before randomization. The paper does not establish that the participant had a formal type 2 diabetes diagnosis or describe the other studies. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Lifestyle management is first line therapy in PCOS for prevention of weight gain and for weight loss (Teede et al. , 2011).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Teede et al., 2011 source
The Evidence-based recommendation (5.2a) explicitly calls lifestyle management first-line therapy for women with PCOS, targeting weight loss in those who are overweight and prevention of weight gain in those who are lean. This supports the citing sentence, with those BMI-specific targets understood. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Based on current guidelines, metformin is indicated in PCOS in some scenarios to improve fertility (Teede et al. , 2011; Legro et al. , 2013), for management of menstrual irregularity if women are unable to take OCPs, and in co-existent prediabetes or DM2, where lifestyle modification fails (Legro et al. , 2013).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Teede et al., 2011 source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Partly supportedcites Legro et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In PCOS, metformin reduces insulin resistance and inhibits ovarian androgen production via effects on steroidogenic acute regulatory protein and 17alphahydroxylase (Diamanti-Kandarakis et al. , 2010; Viollet et al. , 2012).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Diamanti-Kandarakis et al., 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Viollet et al., 2012 source
The PCOS discussion (passage 1; page not provided) says metformin improves insulin sensitivity, reduces CYP17 activity, suppresses ovarian androstenedione production, and decreases StAR activity. The conclusion (passage 3) also describes reduced insulin resistance and direct ovarian effects in PCOS. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Metformin increases insulin sensitivity by decreasing gluconeogenesis and lipogenesis and by enhancing glucose uptake in the liver, skeletal muscle, adipose tissue, and ovaries.
- Not matched
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“It is known in other populations to prevent weight gain and appearstoassistwithweightloss,topreventandmanageDM2,gestational diabetes, fatty liver, and reduce cardiovascular disease in DM2 (Lord et al. , 2003; Desilets et al. , 2008; Nestler, 2008; Batra et al. , 2009; NieuwenhuisRuifrok et al. , 2009; Oppelt et al. , 2010; Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group, 2012; Viollet et al. , 2012)”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Lord et al., 2003 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Weight section reports no evidence that metformin reduces weight or BMI in women with polycystic ovary syndrome; it does not assess weight effects in other populations. The Possible recommendations section discusses cardiovascular benefit only as a theoretical possibility in that population. Our copy does not establish the claimed effects on type 2 diabetes, gestational diabetes, fatty liver, or cardiovascular disease in other populations. (LLM, conf=0.74)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Desilets et al., 2008 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Nestler, 2008 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“insulin resistance affects ≏ 85% (75% of lean and 95% of overweight) of cases (Stepto et al. , 2013).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Stepto et al., 2013 source
The Discussion reports that 85% of women with PCOS were insulin resistant, including 75% of lean and 95% of obese women. Elsewhere in the Discussion, the paper calls the latter group “overweight PCOS,” matching the citing sentence. Page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“RoB could not be assessed for one study due to insufficient information (Karimzadeh and Javedani, 2010).”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Karimzadeh and Javedani, 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Study Groups section says participants were randomly assigned to four groups but does not describe how assignment was carried out. Neither that section nor the other passages examined state that risk of bias could not be assessed because of insufficient information; that is the citing authors’ assessment, which this source cannot verify. (LLM, conf=0.74)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Insulin resistance and hyperandrogenism play a key role in the pathophysiology of PCOS”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Stepto et al., 2013 source
The Introduction describes insulin resistance as a central characteristic in the majority of women with PCOS and says it drives hyperandrogenism and clinical features. The Results also report a correlation between insulin resistance and androgen status in women with PCOS. Together, these passages support the broad pathophysiology statement. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Insulin resistance was assessed in five of nine studies comparing lifestyle + metformin with lifestyle + placebo (Pasquali et al. , 2000; Hoeger et al. , 2004; Gambineri et al. , 2006; Ladson et al. , 2011a, b).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pasquali et al. , 2000 source
- Supportedcites Hoeger et al. , 2004 source
The trial includes lifestyle-plus-metformin and lifestyle-plus-placebo arms, and its Statistical Analysis section (page unavailable) says it analyzed insulin responses to a glucose tolerance test. This supports citing Hoeger et al. as one study that assessed an insulin-related measure in that comparison; the five-of-nine tally is the citing authors’ synthesis, not a count this individual trial could establish. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gambineri et al. , 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In Hoeger et al. , abnormal fasting or 2 h post OGTT glucose levels were reported in two subjects on metformin, three on lifestyle and none on lifestyle + metforminat baseline.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hoeger et al. , 2004 source
The glucose-tolerance results passage reports two subjects in the metformin group, three in the lifestyle group, and none in the combined group. It then separately reports the findings at 48 weeks, consistent with the cited counts being baseline findings. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“It was a secondary outcome in one study (Karimzadeh and Javedani, 2010) with a pregnancy rate of 14% (13/90) on lifestyle + metformin and 20% (15/ 75) on lifestyle alone, with no significant difference.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Karimzadeh and Javedani, 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Table 2 reports 13/90 pregnancies in the metformin group and 15/75 in the lifestyle-modification group; the Results say clinical pregnancy rates did not differ significantly (P=.56). The Study Groups section says all participants received diet and exercise advice, but it identifies the 13/90 arm as metformin, not a combined lifestyle-modification-plus-metformin arm. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Two participants on lifestyle + metformin [16% (2/12)] in one study (Pasquali et al. , 2000) who became pregnant were excluded and two pregnancies [18% (2/11)] occurred on lifestyle + placebo in another study (Hoeger et al. , 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pasquali et al. , 2000 source
- Supportedcites Hoeger et al. , 2004 source
The Study Protocol states that 11 women were assigned to lifestyle modification plus placebo. The participant-flow passage reports that two women in that arm became pregnant, matching 2/11 (approximately 18%). The Pasquali et al. result is attributed to a different study and is not assessed against Hoeger et al. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“At study end, new onset IGT was noted in one subject on metformin and none on lifestyle (Hoeger et al. , 2008).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hoeger et al. , 2008 source
The Results section reports that, at the concluding oral glucose tolerance test, new-onset IGT occurred in one subject in the metformin group and none in the lifestyle group. This directly matches the attributed claim; the paper also notes that the between-group finding was not statistically significant. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Data on BMI, testosterone, SHBG, FAI, menstruation, fasting glucose, glucose AUC and insulin AUC were also available from two studies with durations of 12 months and 48 weeks (Hoeger et al. , 2004; Gambineri et al. , 2006).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Hoeger et al., 2004 source
Hoeger et al. report a 48-week trial. Table 1 lists baseline BMI, testosterone, SHBG, FAI, fasting glucose, glucose AUC and insulin AUC; Table 3 reports follow-up data for the metabolic and hormonal measures, and the Ovulation section reports menstrual events. The sentence attributes the separate 12-month study to Gambineri et al., not to Hoeger et al. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gambineri et al., 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In another study by Hoeger et al. (2008), IFG or IGT was seen in 25% of subjects at baseline (four IFG and six IGT) and one subject had DM2, although assignment groups were not noted.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Hoeger et al. , 2008 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Metformin clearly reduces insulin resistance in DM2and in adults and adolescents with PCOS when hyperinsulinaemic euglycaemic clamps were used (Moghetti et al. , 2000; Meyer et al. , 2007; Arslanian et al. , 2002).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Moghetti et al. , 2000 source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Meyer et al. , 2007 source
- Partly supportedcites Arslanian et al. , 2002 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (p. 3) report significantly higher insulin-stimulated glucose disposal after metformin treatment, measured with a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp in obese adolescents with PCOS and impaired glucose tolerance. This study did not test adults with PCOS or people with type 2 diabetes. The Discussion (p. 4) also cautions that, because the trial was open-label, the observed effects cannot be attributed to metformin with certainty. (LLM, conf=0.88)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Emerging literature including a recent systematic review is suggestive of a possible dose dependent effect of metformin on vitamin B12 absorption (Liu et al. , 2014), although this is often not clinically significant.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Liu et al. , 2014 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that vitamin B12 concentration fell more in the higher-dose than the lower-dose metformin group. The Discussion proposes malabsorption as a possible mechanism, but the review does not establish a dose-dependent effect on absorption itself. It describes the clinical significance of lower B12 concentrations as controversial, rather than establishing that the effect is often not clinically significant. (LLM, conf=0.85)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In the interim there is inadequate evidence on the impact of metformin on glucose tolerance in prediabetes and DM2 specifically in PCOS, but based on data in general populations, current guidelines recommend using metformin in obese women with PCOS who have prediabetes or DM2 (Legro et al. , 2013).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Legro et al. , 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The guideline’s ‘Use of metformin in adults’ recommendation (3.6; page not provided) recommends metformin for women with PCOS and type 2 diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance, but only if lifestyle modification fails. It does not limit that recommendation to obese women, and the claim omits the lifestyle-modification condition. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MeanBMIwas . 35 kg/m 2 in 7 of 12 RCTs (Pasquali et al. , 2000; Hoeger et al. , 2004, 2008; Gambineri et al. , 2006; Tang et al. , 2006; Ladson et al. , 2011a, b).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of2372 identified studies, 12 RCTs were included for analysis comprising 608 women with PCOS.”
- Also stated in: § Study selection · p. 4 · plain
“Twelve RCTs met the inclusion criteria”
plainn = 608- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Study selection · p. 4 · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but testosterone was lower with metformin.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interventions ranged from 3 to 12 months with a total of 608 participants aged 12-39 years in lifestyle + metformin or lifestyle + placebo or metformin alone arms of RCTs.”
plainn = 608- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the study not included in the meta-analysis due to shorter duration (Otta et al. , 2010), lifestyle + metformin was associated with lower fasting insulin and HOMA compared with baseline, but these differences were not statistically significant compared with lifestyle + placebo.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Otta et al. , 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were no differences in visceral and total adipose tissue, waist circumference and WHR (Table III) at study end for lifestyle + metformin compared with lifestyle + placebo.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“None of the women on lifestyle + metformin and two on lifestyle + placebo required additional insulin treatment (Vanky et al. , 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Vanky et al. , 2004
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were no differences in biochemical hyperandrogenism, acne or Ferriman-Gallwey score for hirsutism (Table III) at study end for lifestyle + metformin compared with lifestyle + placebo studies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In addition, IGT was seen in three (15%) subjects on lifestyle + metformin and two (11%) on lifestyle + placebo at baseline which decreased to two (10%) and 0 respectively at 12 months.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gambineri et al. , 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In Otta et al. , one subject on lifestyle + metformin and five on lifestyle + placebo were prediabetic (no definition provided) at baseline and all normalized by study end (4 months) (Otta et al. , 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Otta et al. , 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were no significant differences in post OGTT insulin (insulin AUC) (MD 0.18 m U/ml/min, 95% CI 2 0.18, 0.55, P 0.31) (Fig. 4), fasting insulin, insulinogenic index, insulin sensitivity index and QUICKI (Table III) at study completion between lifestyle + metformin groups compared with lifestyle + placebo.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therewerenodifferences in fasting glucose (Fig. 7), glucoseAUC,lipidsorbloodpressure(TableIII)atstudyendforlifestyle + metformin versus lifestyle + placebo.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In another study with participants who all desired pregnancy, pregnancy rates were 8.7% (6/69) on lifestyle + metformin and 2.7% (2/74) on lifestyle + placebo, with no significant difference (Tang et al. , 2006).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tang et al. , 2006 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“EmergingdatasuggestobesityhasabidirectionalrelationshipwithPCOS, with obesity increasing PCOS prevalence and PCOS increasing weight gain and obesity (Teede et al. , 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Teede et al., 2013 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The resulting hyperinsulinaemia increases androgen production and reduces sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) leading to hyperandrogenism (Teede et al. , 2007).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Teede et al., 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Insulin resistance is further exacerbated by overweight and obesity, a commonfinding in PCOS [risk ratio (95% confidence interval (CI)): 1.95 (1.52, 2.50) and 2.77 (1.88, 4.10), respectively, for women with PCOS compared with controls from a systematic review] (Ng et al. , 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ng et al., 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I 2 . 30% was considered as moderate to high heterogeneity.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was one study with high RoB, seven studies with moderate and three with low RoB.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To assess the methodological quality of the included studies, a risk of bias (RoB) assessment tool developed a priori was employed.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results from one study that involved pregnant womenwithPCOSwerenotincludedinthemeta-analysistoreduceheterogeneity.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data were extracted from included studies by two independent reviewers (N.N., S.S.) using a specially developed data extraction form according to the selection criteria.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However key knowledge gaps remain on the efficacy of metformin and its specific role in PCOS, including in weight management.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Existing study limitations include small sample sizes, short durations and risk of bias.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The dropout rate was 25% (71/279) for lifestyle + metformin or metformin alone treatment and 29% (79/271) for lifestyle + placebo treatment.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most studies were for 6 months and 6-month data were also available for the two longer 48- and 52-week studies. Six-month data were therefore selected for meta-analysis.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Consistently, weight loss through lifestyle modification (comprising dietary modification, physical activity and/or behavioural change), medications (metformin, orlistat, incretin mimetics) orbariatric surgery improves insulin resistance, reduces hyperandrogenism and alleviates PCOS clinical severity (Moran et al. , 2011; Vosnakis et al. , 2013; Jensterle et al. , 2015).”
What the sources say
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fixed-effect model was used for variables with low heterogeneityandtherandom-effectmodelwasusedforvariableswithmoderate or high heterogeneity.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of the authors had a conflict of interest.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The specified methods of measurement for these variables were all standard and reliable.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Body composition as assessed by computed tomography(CT)atL4-5wasprovided in two (Pasquali et al. , 2000; Gambineri et al. , 2006) of nine studies comparing lifestyle + metformin with lifestyle + placebo.”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Menstruationwasassessedinsevenofninestudiescomparinglifestyle + metformin with lifestyle + placebo.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Main reasons for higher RoBincludelackof blinding of outcome assessors (detection bias), not applying intention to treat analysis, and high dropout rates (Table II).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A meta-analysis was not performed on HOMA due to small study numbers ( n ¼ 2).”
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Twostudies that used dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) for body composition could not be included for meta-analysis as one reported mean change and the other reported only the end result.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This review was also limited to articles published in English and most had moderate RoB.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Womenwith PCOS report significant concern regarding weight gain, havehigherratesofweightgainandaremorelikelytobeobese(Lim et al. ,”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lim et al.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The strengths of this review are the novelty of the clinically relevant comparison of combined lifestyle + metformin with lifestyle + placebo and the comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis methodology.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Womenwith PCOS report significant concern regarding weight gain, havehigherratesofweightgainandaremorelikelytobeobese(Lim et al. ,”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lim et al.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, in the first systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the addition of metformin to lifestyle versus lifestyle + placebo, we report that lifestyle + metformin appears to offer benefits in weight loss and menstrual cyclicity.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Almost all participants in this review were obese, limiting generalizability of these findings to lean PCOS women, and phenotypic subgroups were not identified.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Lactic acidosis is an exceptionally rare complication that occurs in the setting of serious comorbidities including renal insufficiency (Baileyand Turner, 1996; DeFronzo, 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Baileyand Turner, 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites DeFronzo, 2000 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Womenwith PCOS report significant concern regarding weight gain, havehigherratesofweightgainandaremorelikelytobeobese(Lim et al. ,”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lim et al.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we suggest that metformin may have a key role in PCOS, in addition to lifestyle, to assist in weight management and cycle regulation.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“most studies had small sample sizes and moderate to high RoB.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However we report a limited number of identified RCTs, with most involving small sample sizes, high attrition rates and poor adherence.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, metformin could be a safe choice of medication, should its efficacy in PCOS be confirmed.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The most common metformin side effects are mild and transient and may be reduced by taking the medication with food or gradually escalating the dose.
The paper relies on this without support.
Metformin increases insulin sensitivity by decreasing gluconeogenesis and lipogenesis and by enhancing glucose uptake in the liver, skeletal muscle, adipose tissue, and ovaries.
“Metforminincreases insulin sensitivity by decreasing gluconeogenesis, lipogenesis and enhancing glucose uptake in the liver, skeletal muscle, adipose tissue and ovaries.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Engagement, compliance, and sustainability with lifestyle modification in PCOS remain challenging.
“While evidence-based guidelines recommend lifestyle modification as first line treatment in PCOS (Teede et al. , 2011), engagement, compliance and sustainability remain challenging.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The most common metformin side effects are mild and transient and may be reduced by taking the medication with food or gradually escalating the dose.
“The most common side effects of metformin are appetite suppression, nausea or vomiting, abdominal bloating and diarrhoea that are often mild and transient and may be reduced by taking the medication with food or gradually escalating the dose.”
The paper relies on this without support.
PCOS is closely related to obesity and weight management is first-line therapy.
“PCOS is closely inter-related to obesity and weight management is first line therapy.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The Indian and US Diabetes Prevention studies likely included many women with PCOS.
“The Indian and US Diabetes Prevention studies, conducted in people with prior prediabetes or gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and likely to include many women with PCOS, reported that metformin lowered weight and BMI and reduced progression to DM2 (Knowler et al. , 2002; Ramachandran et al. , 2006), with metformin more effective for women with prior GDM (Ratner et al. , 2008).”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Several studies have shown that metformin may improve biochemical hyperandrogenism and anovulation (9, 10).”
From Metformin and Combined Oral Contraceptive Pills in the Management of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (2024) · cites this paper as [9]
In the citing paper
“A 5% to 10% weight loss improves many PCOS features, including psychological factors [13, 14].”
In the citing paper
“A meta-analysis of metformin use with and without lifestyle changes in PCOS (including two RCTs in adolescents [164, 178]) showed beneficial effects on BMI and menstrual cycles [164, 178, 179].”
From Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Pathophysiology, Presentation, and Treatment With Emphasis on Adolescent Girls (2019) · cites this paper as [179]
In the citing paper
“Pharmacological treatment can increase efficacy of lifestyle interventions [53,54].”
From Weight management interventions in women with and without PCOS: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [53]
In the citing paper
“A recent meta-analysis reported that a metformin plus lifestyle intervention results in more reduction in fat and improved menstrual cyclicity, compared to lifestyle alone in PCOS [53].”
From Weight management interventions in women with and without PCOS: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [53]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“(0/20) 0% LS + MF, (1/10) 5% LS”
Reported 5 · recomputed 10
Citations
Cites
Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin
(2002) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa012512 · Cited by 19,011
Ng, M., Fleming, T., Robinson, M., Thomson, B., Graetz, N., Margono, C., Mullany, E. C., Biryukov, S., Abbafati, C., Abera, S. F., et al. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)60460-8 · Cited by 11,952
The Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM-sponsored PCOS consensus workshop group (2004) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/deh098 · Cited by 6,138
Legro, R. S., Arslanian, S. A., Ehrmann, D. A., Hoeger, K. M., Murad, M. H., Pasquali, R., & Welt, C. K. (2013) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jc.2013-2350 · Cited by 1,919
Ramachandran, A., Snehalatha, C., Mary, S., Mukesh, B., Bhaskar, A. D., Vijay, V., & Indian Diabetes Prevention Programme (IDPP) (2006) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/s00125-005-0097-z · Cited by 1,881
March, W. A., Moore, V. M., Willson, K. J., Phillips, D. I. W., Norman, R. J., & Davies, M. J. (2010) · Human Reproduction · doi:10.1093/humrep/dep399 · Cited by 1,799
Bailey, C. J., & Turner, R. C. (1996) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199602293340906 · Cited by 1,726
Cellular and molecular mechanisms of metformin: an overview
Viollet, B., Guigas, B., Garcia, N. S., Leclerc, J., Foretz, M., & Andreelli, F. (2012) · Clinical Science · doi:10.1042/cs20110386 · Cited by 1,720
Teede, H., Deeks, A., & Moran, L. (2010) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-41 · Cited by 1,565
Self-citationPharmacological Management of Obesity: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline
Apovian, C. M., Aronne, L. J., Bessesen, D. H., McDonnell, M. E., Murad, M. H., Pagotto, U., Ryan, D. H., & Still, C. D. (2015) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/jc.2014-3415 · Cited by 1,347
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- NEbw panel. NIH Evidence based workshop on Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. 2012.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Definition, Aetiology, Diagnosis and Treatment
Escobar-Morreale, H. F. (2018) · Nature Reviews Endocrinology · doi:10.1038/nrendo.2018.24 · Cited by 2,083
Azziz, R., Carmina, E., Chen, Z., Dunaif, A., Laven, J. S. E., Legro, R. S., Lizneva, D., Natterson-Horowtiz, B., Teede, H. J., & Yildiz, B. O. (2016) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.57 · Cited by 2,005
Self-citationDumesic, D. A., Oberfield, S. E., Stener-Victorin, E., Marshall, J. C., Laven, J. S., & Legro, R. S. (2015) · Endocrine Reviews · doi:10.1210/er.2015-1018 · Cited by 1,020
Joham, A. E., Norman, R. J., Stener-Victorin, E., Legro, R. S., Franks, S., Moran, L. J., Boyle, J., & Teede, H. J. (2022) · The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology · doi:10.1016/s2213-8587(22)00163-2 · Cited by 838
Self-citationBalen, A. H., Morley, L. C., Misso, M., Franks, S., Legro, R. S., Wijeyaratne, C. N., Stener-Victorin, E., Fauser, B. C. J. M., Norman, R. J., & Teede, H. (2016) · Human Reproduction Update · doi:10.1093/humupd/dmw025 · Cited by 705
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Naderpoor, N., Shorakae, S., de Courten, B., Misso, M. L., Moran, L. J., & Teede, H. J.
- Affiliations
- Monash Health (AU)
- Monash University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Teede, Helena J.
- Venue
- Human Reproduction Update
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2015-06-09
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 560-574
- ISSN
- 1355-4786 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-2369
- OpenAlex
- W4244088697
- Cited by
- 334
- References
- 65
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 6
- FWCI
- 4.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Human Reproduction Update (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- NHMRC
- SACVRDP
- South Australian Department of Health and the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian function and disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
- Keywords
- polycystic ovary syndrome, metformin, lifestyle modification, insulin resistance, obesity, body mass index, menstrual cyclicity, ovulation, hyperandrogenism, testosterone, quality of life, weight loss, subcutaneous adipose tissue, hyperinsulinemia, lipid profile, blood pressure, psychological outcomes, reproductive outcomes, metabolic outcomes, medication adherence, treatment sustainability
- MeSH terms
- Combined Modality Therapy, Female, Humans, Hyperinsulinism, Hypoglycemic Agents, Insulin Resistance, Metformin, Obesity, Ovulation, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, Quality of Life, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Hyperandrogenism, Risk Reduction Behavior
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 2026-10-01, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-01 (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
