ArticleBMC women's health2026
The Menstrual Distress Questionnaire (MEDI-Q): reliability and validity of the German version.
Article in BMC women's health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMenstrual distress affects a substantial proportion of individuals of reproductive age and is associated with impaired quality of life and psychological comorbidities, yet validated German-language instruments for its assessment are lacking. The present study examined the reliability and validity of the German version of the Menstrual Distress Questionnaire (MEDI-Q), a 25-item self-report instrument previously validated in Italian, English, and Indonesian.
methodsA community sample of N = 1,035 German-speaking women completed the MEDI-Q alongside the DASS-21, the PAF10, and a global rating of menstrual symptom severity. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and structural validity via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were examined.
resultsInternal consistency was high (α = 0.839, ω = 0.844) and test-retest reliability acceptable over a naturalistic long-term interval (ICC = 0.823). MEDI-Q Total Score, MS, and MSD correlated negatively with age and positively with psychological distress, premenstrual symptoms, and global symptom severity, while the Menstrual Specificity Index (MESI) showed a significantly weaker and statistically distinct association with the global rating. Among three competing factor models, the theoretically proposed 5-factor structure showed the best relative fit, though none of the models reached conventional fit thresholds (CFI/TLI ≥ 0.90), and structural validity warrants further investigation. Applying the proposed cut-off of ≥ 20, 36.4% of the community sample exceeded this threshold.
conclusionsThe German MEDI-Q represents a psychometrically adequate instrument for standardised assessment of menstrual distress in German-speaking contexts, facilitating cross-cultural comparisons across four language versions, while structural validity remains unestablished and the instrument should be interpreted as a total score measure pending further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.