From PCOS to PMOS: navigating the nomenclature revolution clinical, diagnostic, and therapeutic implications for the Indian reproductive medicine landscape

Abstract In May 2026, a global consensus of 56 academic, clinical, and patient organisations formally renamed Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS) to Polyendocrine Metabolic Ovarian Syndrome (PMOS), following a 14-year international process and more than 14,000 survey responses (1). This narrative review examines the rationale for renaming, the consensus process, and the diagnostic, clinical, therapeutic, and implementation implications for Indian reproductive medicine. PMOS is used throughout this review to refer to the current nomenclature; PCOS is reserved for historical terms, original diagnostic criteria, and quoted nomenclature. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase were searched for literature on PCOS/PMOS nomenclature, epidemiology, diagnosis, phenotyping, management, mental health, and Indian/South Asian clinical characteristics. A narrative rather than systematic review was chosen given the recency of the nomenclature change and the aim of providing a broad, contextual clinical overview; PRISMA-based study selection and meta-analysis were not performed. Contemporary Indian/South Asian literature from 2015 to 2026 was prioritised, while foundational studies were included without date restriction. The 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline and the 2026 nomenclature consensus were used as primary normative sources. Globally, PMOS affects an estimated 6 to 21% of women of reproductive age depending on diagnostic criteria and population studied (2). The nationwide Indian study by Ganie et al. reported a weighted prevalence of 19.6% by Rotterdam criteria, with phenotype C predominating at 40.8% (3). The PMOS transition may improve recognition of the disorder’s systemic metabolic and psychological dimensions, but it should not be used to justify testing or treatment beyond current evidence. We distinguish guideline-supported care from emerging or experimental approaches and discuss Indian-specific feasibility, affordability, and evidence gaps.