Title: Sexuality and Psychological Well-being in Different Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
Phenotypes Compared with Healthy Controls: A Cross-sectional Study
Version: 1 Date: 31 Mar 2022
Reviewer's report:
BMC Women's Health
Ref: Submission ID 2fa6d63d-45f3-4dda-8429-d1ef44782f36
Sexuality and Psychological Well-being in Different Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Phenotypes
Compared with Healthy Controls: A Cross-sectional Study
Comments to the Author
This paper treats an interesting and important question, since the usual research on PCOS is on
the physiologic health impact. The psychological impact is rarely discussed but as important.
However, I have some queries to the authors or some aspects that I would like them to clarify.
Thank you for this research.
Comments:
This cross-sectional study this study compared women with different PCOS phenotypes with
the healthy group in terms of sexual function, depression, anxiety, and quality of life scale. All
participants quality of life and depression, anxiety and stress were assayed by valid and reliable
questionnaires. Authors found significant differences in terms of sexual dysfunction, depression,
anxiety and quality of life in the women suffering from different phenotypes of PCOS compared
with the healthy group. However, I have some queries to the authors or some aspects that I would
like them to clarify.
- I was surprised to see that the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and
management of PCOS (2018) was not referenced. Given the important contribution to the field
this has made I think the authors should consider this.
- In the abstract (Materials and Methods), the authors describe those 192 infertile women with
PCOS who had different phenotypes were evaluated. Did all the volunteers, including those who
did not have ovulatory dysfunction (Phenotype C) also have infertility?
- The introduction section is well written, but I missed some information. The authors put the
history of the problem and the description of the problem, but I felt a lack of citation of works
already done. On the other hand, they described the objective twice.
- The authors should be much clearer: What is the research hypothesis?
- In the Materials and methods section, the text presents two definitions for irregularity of
menstrual cycles or ovulation disorder: "[ ...According to FIGO recommendations (12), patients
who had intervals of menstrual cycle over 35 days were diagnosed as having infrequent
menstrual bleeding, and cycle <23 days as frequent menstrual bleeding, and absence of
menstrual periods for #6 months as amenorrhea (13,14) / We described ovulation disorder as
the menstrual cycle duration of more than 35 days or lack of menstrual cycle for more than three
months (oligo/anovulation)]".
- In the statistical analysis, the authors put... ["Considering this state, Binary logestic regression
was used to control confounder variables and simultaneously examine the independent
variables]. What are these variables?
- Obesity is a factor that negatively interferes with the physical and mental health of women
with PCOS. What was the percentile of obese female volunteers in this sample? Could BMI be
considered a confounding variable?
- In results, I didn't find table 2
- In discussion section- Some acronyms that appear in the text are described only in the tables.
Please describe them in the text
- In some parts, the discussion repeats data from the results and more a literature review than a
discussion of the study results, which are very interesting, with previous studies
-The limitations of this study were recognized, as well as the strengths. However, what these
results add to the scientific literature? The possible public health impacts of this finding?
key literature missing
doi: 10.22074/ijfs.2021.6206 (2021)
doi: 10.1007/s43032-021-00546-x (2021)
doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2019.05.006 (2019)