Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39052601›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2024

Measurement of changes to the menstrual cycle: A transdisciplinary systematic review evaluating measure quality and utility for clinical trials.

Amelia C L Mackenzie, Stephanie Chung, Emily Hoppes, Alexandria K Mickler, Alice F Cartwright

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The menstrual cycle is a vital sign across the lifespan.The Lancet. Obstetrics, gynaecology, & women's health · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Amelia C L MackenzieGlobal Health and Population, FHI 360, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1721-805X
Stephanie ChungGlobal Health and Population, FHI 360, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Emily HoppesGlobal Health and Population, FHI 360, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Alexandria K MicklerResearch, Technology and Utilization Division, United States Agency for International Development and the Public Health Institute, Office of Population and Reproductive Health, Bureau for Global Health, Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
Alice F CartwrightGlobal Health and Population, FHI 360, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1557-8062

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the importance of menstruation and the menstrual cycle to health, human rights, and sociocultural and economic wellbeing, the study of menstrual health suffers from a lack of funding, and research remains fractured across many disciplines. We sought to systematically review validated approaches to measure four aspects of changes to the menstrual cycle-bleeding, blood, pain, and perceptions-caused by any source and used within any field. We then evaluated the measure quality and utility for clinical trials of the identified instruments. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and four instrument databases and included peer-reviewed articles published between 2006 and 2023 that reported on the development or validation of instruments assessing menstrual changes using quantitative or mixed-methods methodology. From a total of 8,490 articles, 8,316 were excluded, yielding 174 articles reporting on 94 instruments. Almost half of articles were from the United States or United Kingdom and over half of instruments were only in English, Spanish, French, or Portuguese. Most instruments measured bleeding parameters, uterine pain, or perceptions, but few assessed characteristics of blood. Nearly 60% of instruments were developed for populations with menstrual or gynecologic disorders or symptoms. Most instruments had fair or good measure quality or clinical trial utility; however, most instruments lacked evidence on responsiveness, question sensitivity and/or transferability, and only three instruments had good scores of both quality and utility. Although we took a novel, transdisciplinary approach, our systematic review found important gaps in the literature and instrument landscape, pointing towards a need to examine the menstrual cycle in a more comprehensive, inclusive, and standardized way. Our findings can inform the development of new or modified instruments, which-if used across the many fields that study menstrual health and within clinical trials-can contribute to a more systemic and holistic understanding of menstruation and the menstrual cycle.

Indexed as

Menstrual CycleClinical Trials as TopicFemaleHumansMenstruation

Identifiers

PMID39052601
PMCPMC11271926

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.