METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Psychological Information Database (PsycINFO), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for all randomized control trials, comparing LC alone or in combination with other standard treatments for the treatment of PCOS from inception till June 2021. We independently screened titles and abstracts to identify available trials, and complete texts of the trials were checked for eligibility. Data on the methods, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias from the included trials were independently extracted by the authors. The estimation of risk ratios and mean differences with a 95 percent confidence interval (CI) was performed using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Nine studies with 995 participants were included in this review. Five comparison groups were involved. In one comparison group, LC reduced the fasting plasma glucose (FPG) (mean differences (MD) -5.10, 95% CI [-6.25 to -3.95]; P = 0.00001), serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL) (MD -25.00, 95% CI [-27.93 to -22.07]; P = 0.00001), serum total cholesterol (MD -21.00, 95% CI [-24.14 to -17.86]; P = 0.00001), and serum triglyceride (TG) (MD -9.00, 95% CI [-11.46 to -6.54]; P = 0.00001) with moderate certainty of evidence. Another comparison group demonstrated that LC lowers the LDL (MD -12.00, 95% CI [-15.80 to -8.20]; P = 0.00001), serum total cholesterol (MD -24.00, 95% CI [-27.61 to -20.39]; P = 0.00001), and serum TG (MD -19.00, 95% CI [-22.79 to -15.21]; P = 0.00001) with moderate certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSION: There was low to moderate certainty of evidence that LC improves Body Mass Index (BMI) and serum LDL, TG, and total cholesterol levels in women with PCOS.
METHODOLOGY: A literature search was conducted in four databases: Scopus, PubMed, EBSCO and Web of Science from January 2010 to June 2022. The articles were screened, evaluated for quality before data were extracted. The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021245649). Standardized mean differences (SMD) of peak cTn were analyzed with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) using Revman 5.4 software.
RESULTS: Six studies satisfied the inclusion criteria with a total of 92 and 79 participants for HIIE and MICE, respectively. Overall, there was no significant difference between HIIE and MICE in the elevation of cardiac troponin T (SMD: 0.41 [95% CI [-0.21, 1.03]], p = 0.20, I 2 = 77%, p for heterogeneity <0.01). In subgroup analysis, HIIE with passive recovery elicits greater release of cardiac troponin T than MICE (SMD: 0.85 [95% CI [0.44, 1.27]], p