Wang Rui, Mol Ben Willem J
Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, School of Medicine, Robinson Research Institute, The University of Adelaide, 55 King William Road, North Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia.
Reproductive Medicine Centre, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, Hubei 430030, China.
Hum Reprod. 2017 Feb;32(2):261-264. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dew287. Epub 2016 Nov 9.
The Rotterdam criteria for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) are used by a wide range of medical professionals and researchers. However, the development of these criteria was based on expert meetings and not on evidence-based treatment guidance. Over the last decade, the Rotterdam criteria have been useful in guiding research, and a number of clinical studies on PCOS have been published consequently. We plead to revisit the Rotterdam criteria based on the available evidence in prognostic studies and randomized controlled trials. In this opinion paper, we provide arguments of the strengths and limitations of the Rotterdam criteria in guiding treatment selections and predicting prognoses in women with infertility. While the Rotterdam criteria have shown their advantages in predicting reproductive prognosis, the next step is to evaluate whether they can guide treatment choices in infertility as well as other health aspects of the syndrome. Based on available data in clinical studies, we should be able to determine whether the Rotterdam criteria are evidence-based criteria.
多囊卵巢综合征（PCOS）的鹿特丹标准被广泛的医学专业人员和研究人员所使用。然而，这些标准的制定基于专家会议，而非基于循证治疗指南。在过去十年中，鹿特丹标准对指导研究很有用，因此也发表了许多关于PCOS的临床研究。我们呼吁根据预后研究和随机对照试验中的现有证据重新审视鹿特丹标准。在这篇观点论文中，我们阐述了鹿特丹标准在指导治疗选择和预测不育女性预后方面的优势和局限性。虽然鹿特丹标准在预测生殖预后方面已显示出其优势，但下一步是评估它们是否也能指导不育症的治疗选择以及该综合征的其他健康方面。基于临床研究中的现有数据，我们应该能够确定鹿特丹标准是否为循证标准。
