Cited by 67Ovarian function and disordersClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality ControlAdrenal Hormones and Disorders

Implications of Androgen Assay Accuracy in the Phenotyping of Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome

Tosi, Flavia, Fiers, Tom, Kaufman, Jean-Marc, Dall'Alda, Marlene, Moretta, Rossella, Giagulli, Vito Angelo, Bonora, Enzo, Moghetti, Paolo·2016·The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

Abstract

Context/objective Hyperandrogenism is a common feature of women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and is considered a cardinal element for the diagnosis and phenotyping of this condition. Unfortunately, routinely available methods for measuring serum androgens suffer from major limitations. No data are available on the impact of androgen assay quality on the assignment of PCOS women to the different clinical phenotypes of PCOS, when defined according to the Rotterdam criteria for diagnosis. Patients Two hundred four consecutive Caucasian women with PCOS, diagnosed by the Rotterdam criteria participated in the study. Design Assessment of total T (TT), free T (FT), and androstenedione (A) by both a chemiluminescent assay, routinely available in our hospital, and gold standard methodology, ie, liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry and equilibrium dialysis, was performed. The results were compared and the associations of these data with clinical and metabolic features of PCOS women were analyzed. Results By using gold standard assays, TT was high in 36.3% of women, whereas A only marginally contributed to identifying hyperandrogenemic patients. However, gold standard FT measurement was elevated in 70.6% of the PCOS patients, identifying them as hyperandrogenemic. Routine TT and A assays, and the derived calculated FT, were strikingly inaccurate, with substantial overestimation. These assays erroneously classified 60 patients (29.4%), 32 as false hyperandrogenemic, and 28 as…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1210/jc.2015-2807

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tosi, F., Fiers, T., Kaufman, J.-M., Dall'Alda, M., Moretta, R., Giagulli, V. A., Bonora, E., & Moghetti, P.
Affiliations
University of Verona (IT)
Corresponding author
Moghetti, Paolo
Venue
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism
Published
2016-02
Volume
101
Issue
2
Pages
610-618
ISSN
  • 0021-972X (ISSN-L)
  • 1945-7197
OpenAlex
W2202442770
Cited by
67
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
9.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Università degli Studi di Verona
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian function and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Adrenal Hormones and Disorders
Keywords
polycystic ovary syndrome, hyperandrogenism, free testosterone, total testosterone, androstenedione, Rotterdam criteria, metabolic risk, chemiluminescence assay, equilibrium dialysis
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Androgens, Androstenedione, Dialysis, False Positive Reactions, Female, Humans, Phenotype, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, Reference Standards, Testosterone, Reproducibility of Results, Hyperandrogenism, Risk Assessment, Young Adult

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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