Journal of endocrinological investigation
October 21, 2026 · via Europe PMC
Diagnosis and management of polycystic ovary syndrome/polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome: unmet needs and areas of clinical confidence among European endocrinologists.
Livadas S, Yildiz BO, Obermayer-Pietsch B, +10 more, Macut D.
AI summary — for doctors, generated from the abstract only
European endocrinologists show clear confidence in metabolic and patient-centered PCOS care but wide variation in diagnostic definitions and treatment choices.
What was studied
Secondary analysis of a 2023 European Society of Endocrinology cross-sectional survey of 505 clinicians on PCOS/PMOS diagnosis and management.
Key findings
- Definitions of chronic ovulatory dysfunction, hirsutism assessment, androgen testing, and ovarian morphology varied.
- Only about one quarter had access to LC-MS/MS steroid measurement.
- Respondents commonly assessed metabolic risk, emphasized lifestyle intervention, and supported multidisciplinary care.
Clinical relevance
Highlights where PCOS practice diverges from guidelines and where standardization is needed.
Who should care
Limitations
Self-reported survey of society members with possible response and selection bias, plus expert interpretation.
Apply guideline-based diagnostic definitions consistently and keep metabolic and psychological assessment central.
This is an AI-generated summary of the published abstract, not a clinical recommendation. It may not reflect the full text or subsequent updates — verify against the original source before acting on it.
Abstract
Background
Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) or polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS) is a common, heterogeneous endocrine disorder whose diagnosis and management remain variable across clinical settings. Despite contemporary international guidance, several diagnostic definitions and therapeutic decisions are not consistently applied.
Objective
To identify persistent unmet needs and areas of clinical confidence in PCOS/PMOS care, using the 2023 survey of the European Society of Endocrinology PCOS Special Interest Group as the principal data source.
Methods
This manuscript presents a secondary, survey-informed analysis of aggregate data from an electronic cross-sectional survey distributed to members of the European Society of Endocrinology. A total of 505 respondents participated. Survey findings were interpreted in the context of current guidelines, contemporary evidence, the previous 2014 European survey, and patient-reported priorities.
Results
Considerable variation was observed in the operational definition of chronic ovulatory dysfunction, the assessment of hirsutism, the biochemical evaluation of androgen excess, and the interpretation of ovarian morphology. Only one quarter of respondents reported access to liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry for steroid measurement. Uncertainty also persisted regarding the choice and duration of combined oral contraceptive therapy and the optimal pharmacological approach to chronic anovulation. Conversely, several areas of clinical confidence were evident. Respondents commonly assessed metabolic risk and lifestyle behaviours, recognized the psychological burden of PCOS/PMOS, emphasized lifestyle intervention, and supported multidisciplinary care. Physician priorities also showed increasing concordance with the concerns reported by women with PCOS/PMOS.
Conclusions
PCOS/PMOS care in Europe combines important progress in patient-centered, metabolic, and multidisciplinary management with persistent diagnostic and therapeutic variability. Greater standardization of operational diagnostic definitions, wider access to accurate steroid assays, and adequately powered comparative trials of commonly used treatments are required. These initiatives should be developed alongside, rather than at the expense of, the patient-centered practices that are already well established.
Study design
Secondary analysis and expert interpretation of cross-sectional survey data.
DOI
10.1007/s40618-026-03050-8
PMID
42905305
Research metadata (titles, abstracts, authors, publication dates) is sourced from Europe PMC, which aggregates content from PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and other providers under the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM/NCBI). NLM does not claim copyright on abstracts; the original journal publishers or authors may hold rights to the full articles. AI-generated summaries are derived only from the abstract, never the full text, and are always labeled as AI-generated.
Want more like this?
Browse more from the feed. A free account unlocks the full feed, saving and communities.
Back to the research feed