Abstract
Data on eating disorders in women with PCOS is insufficient. The objective of this case study was to examine the hypothesis that women with PCOS exhibit more impaired eating than healthy women. Women diagnosed with PCOS under the 2003 Rotterdam Diagnostic Criteria (n = 40) were compared with a healthy control group (n = 40). The groups also were divided into two as normal body weight and overweight/obese. The Eating Disorders Assessment Questionnaire (EDE-Q) and the Three Factor Eating Questionnaire (TFEQ-R21), were completed by all participants in order to evaluate eating behaviors in addition to eating disorders. Among the overweight/obese group, the average total and subscale scores of the EDE-Q as well as the total and sub-factor scores of the TFEQ-R21 were higher in women with PCOS compared to controls (p < .05). However, this statistically significant result was not shown among the women with normal weight (p > .05). In comparison to the controls, the PCOS women displayed higher values of the tool scores indicating abnormal restraint eating, body shape concern and weight concern subscale scores (p < .05). This result suggests that the evaluation of eating disorders should be added to routine screening and the monitoring of women with PCOS.
摘要
关于患有多囊卵巢综合征的妇女饮食失调的数据不足。这个案例研究的目的是检验这样一种假设, 即患有多囊卵巢综合征的女性比健康女性表现出更多的进食障碍。根据2003年鹿特丹诊断标准被诊断为多囊卵巢综合征的妇女(40人)与健康对照组(40人)进行了比较。这些人还被分成两组, 即正常体重和超重/肥胖。所有受试者完成进食障碍评估问卷(EDE-Q)和三因素进食问卷(TFEQ-R21), 以评估进食障碍之外的饮食行为。在超重/肥胖组中, 多囊卵巢综合征妇女的EDE-Q总分和各因子均分以及TFEQ-R21总分和各因子均分均高于对照组(P<0.05)。然而, 这一统计学意义上的结果在正常体重的女性中没有表现出来(p>0.05)。与对照组相比, 多囊卵巢综合征妇女在表示限制进食、关注体型和关注体重的工具分值明显高于对照组(p<0.05)。这一结果表明, 对进食障碍的评估应添加到对多囊卵巢综合征妇女的常规筛查和监测中。
The Chinese abstracts are translated by Prof. Dr. Xiangyan Ruan and her team: Beijing Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100026, China.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Contribution of authors
Should individual references be required, all authors listed have contributed sufficiently to the study to be included as authors. However, BBG and YA contributed to the writing of the article. SC and NB contributed to the collecting of the data, if one needs to mention it individually.