Thank you all for the valuable input! We will bring these perspectives back to SNOMED Int'l to inform their decision on the path forward and we will keep the community apprised of decisions.

Regards,
Janice

Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback. Our team reached out to our clinical SME's, who have highlighted a critical issue that many clinicians have encountered in practice where the current terminology significantly underrepresents the systemic and metabolic nature of this condition, and in doing so, may inadvertently contribute to delayed or incomplete diagnosis.

We received clinical examples, were anchoring the condition to “ovaries” and “cysts” can obscure the broader, and at times more consequential, manifestations of the syndrome (e.g., cardiometabolic risk). From a health information standards perspective, terminology is not simply descriptive, it actively shapes clinical thinking, coding practices, data capture, and ultimately, patient outcomes. When the name of a condition emphasizes one anatomical feature that is neither necessary nor sufficient for diagnosis, it creates friction across multiple layers of care delivery (e.g., clinical assessment, diagnostic coding and data quality). The proposed term “Polyendocrine Metabolic Ovarian Syndrome” more accurately reflects the current medical /scientific understanding. While change management is always a consideration, the likelihood of further substantive shifts in naming appears low relative to the known benefits of moving forward, so BC endorses option 3 as well.

I believe that #3 is the most appropriate pathway and should set a precedence for future changes. In my opinion, this is how the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease to metabolic dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease should also have been approached. This is the most robust approach that will ensure clinical integrity of patient records and align with data best practices. I understand that this is the most resource intensive approach, but it creates a clearer path to avoid a continuous drift in meaning associated with a single concept ID over time.
I think it is very important that we recognize that SNOMED is a clinical terminology and ontology, not a classification and it should not be driven by the decisions at an administrative/statistical level.

Debbie

I heard about this fundamental name change in an interview on CBC and thought about SNOMED CT implications. The paper describes a very rigorous and inclusionary process that led to this name change. As a point of care terminology, seems that taking the necessary steps to accurately and logically accommodate PMOS within the SNOMED CT hierarchy can be an opportunity to show, as authors state, "alignment of nomenclature with scientific evolution". I will be interested in following the community's suggestions on your possible approaches Janice.

Hello,
We are requesting feedback from the community on the following:

Should SNOMED CT adopt “Polyendocrine Metabolic Ovarian Syndrome” (PMOS) as the new name for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) ?

A landmark article published in The Lancet on 12 May 2026 (Teede et al.) proposes renaming polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) to polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS), following a rigorous, multistep global consensus process. The new name reflects the condition’s polyendocrine, metabolic, and ovarian pathophysiology, removes the misleading reference to ovarian cysts, and has been widely welcomed by both the clinical community and patient advocates. Notably, the authors explicitly name SNOMED CT as a target system for adoption as part of a planned three-year global implementation strategy.

This raises a direct question for our community: should SNOMED CT adopt PMOS, and if so, how?

The question is not purely one of naming. The current SNOMED CT concept for PCOS is modelled as an ovarian disorder. PMOS, by definition, is a polyendocrine metabolic condition that extends well beyond the ovary. This means that simply renaming the existing concept would constitute a change in meaning — which under SNOMED editorial principles requires inactivation and replacement with a correctly modelled new concept, not merely a description update. The downstream impacts on value sets, maps, and coded patient data would need careful management.

Possible approaches include:
1. No change yet — monitor clinical and ICD uptake before acting
2. Add PMOS as a synonym now — with preferred term status and remodelling deferred to a defined milestone such as ICD adoption or the 2028 International Guidelines update
3. Inactivate the existing concept and create a new correctly modelled PMOS concept — the editorially rigorous path, with PCOS retained as a historical synonym and appropriate replacement associations provided for implementers

We would welcome community views on the following:
• Does the robustness of this consensus process justify early action in SNOMED CT?
• Which approach best balances editorial integrity, implementer impact, and patient benefit?
• What milestone should trigger full adoption if a deferred approach is preferred?
• Should PCOS be retained indefinitely as an acceptable synonym or deprecated over the transition period?

Please share your feedback in the forum.

Thank you!