ArticleInternational journal of surgery case reports2018
Is the menstrual cup harmless? A case report of an unusual cause of renal colic.
Article in International journal of surgery case reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Menstrual cup use, leakage, acceptability, safety, and availability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The Lancet. Public health · 2019Pooled it
- Pelvic Floor-Related and Genitourinary Outcomes Associated with Menstrual Cup Use: A Scoping Review.International urogynecology journal · 2026Review
- Article
- Ureterohydronephrosis due to a menstrual cup.BMJ case reports · 2025Article
- Abdominal and pelvic radiographs of medical devices and materials- part 2: neurologic and genitourinary devices and materials.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2020Review
- Renal colic with ureterohydronephrosis due to menstrual cup.Urology case reports · 2020Article
- An improperly positioned menstrual cup complicated by hydronephrosis: A case report.Case reports in women's health · 2019Article
- Comparison between menstrual cups: first step to categorization and improved safety.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMenstrual cup is increasingly gaining acceptance among women to control the menstrual period. The majority of brands advocate that these devices are 100% safe to the users, notwithstanding there are some reports of rare complications associated with these devices. PRESENTATION OF CASE: In this case we present a woman who developed a right renal colic using a menstrual cup. The pain was difficult to manage with conventional analgesics. The plain abdominal X-ray revealed the device in the pelvis occupying more than one third of the pelvis minor diameter and oriented to the right side. The ultrasound revealed right ureterohydronephrosis with no identifiable obstructive cause. The symptoms and the ureterohydronephrosis relieved completely after the removal of the device. DISCUSSION: Despite of being a safe device, problems with the menstrual cup could occur and we believe that the mechanism behind this clinical picture was the extrinsic compression of the right ureter by the cup. The control of the pain in this patient was challenging and we managed the problem with the device removal.
conclusionThe menstrual cup is gaining acceptance among women and it is important for clinicians to be aware of this device and possible complications associated with its use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.