To the Editor:
I have read with interest the extensive revision and establishment of criteria for the polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) by The Androgen Excess and PCOS Society (1). Certainly I agree with most of the concepts stated, but I would like to point out some with which I disagree: Read the rest of this entry »
To the Editor:
We read the article by Dr. Dickey with interest (1). Although it covers many aspects of ovulation induction and related multiple pregnancies, we believe some points require further comment. Read the rest of this entry »
To the Editor:
Recent correspondence in this journal (1,2) renewed interest in GnRH agonist therapy as an “ovarian protectant” in female patients undergoing chemotherapy. Do we have evidence-based data to recommend this treatment? Twenty-eight years ago the concept was first introduced. One would expect an “evidence-based” answer to the question, by now. After all, this is a classic question that can only be answered by a multi-center, randomized prospective study.
Do we have the answer?
To the Editor:
We would like to make some comments on the paper by Onalan et al (1). In this paper, the authors found that obesity could be a factor in initiating the growth of an endometrial polyp because they identified obesity as the only independent risk factor using logistic regression analysis. Read the rest of this entry »
To the Editor:
I read with interest the article by Hendriks et al. (1) and I would like to express certain considerations. Since polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) ovaries in humans have different endocrinologic and morphologic properties, the normal bovine ovary model for the evaluation of the amount of damage at different energy modalities seems inadequate. The PCOS ovaries in human are mostly bigger (volume difference), contain several subcortical antral follicles (morphologic difference), are usually anovulatory (functional difference) and secrete more androgen than the non-PCOS counterparts (endocrinologic difference). Read the rest of this entry »
