Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32658929›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2020

Effect of menstrual cycle on resting metabolism: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Melissa J Benton, Andrea M Hutchins, J Jay Dawes

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 56 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Day-to-day variability in resting metabolic rate in strength athletes.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Melissa J BentonDepartment of Nursing, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8616-3350
Andrea M HutchinsDepartment of Human Physiology and Nutrition, University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States of America.
J Jay DawesSchool of Kinesiology, Applied Health and Recreation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, United States of America.
University of Colorado Colorado Springs · USOklahoma State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe need to control for the potential influence of menstrual cycle phase on resting metabolism (RMR) places a burden on research participants who must self-report onset of menstruation and researchers who must schedule metabolic testing accordingly. PURPOSE: To systematically review and analyze existing research to determine the effect of menstrual cycle on RMR.

methodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus databases using the search terms "menstrual cycle and metabolic rate" and "menstrual cycle and energy expenditure." Eligibility criteria were English language, single-group repeated measures design, and RMR as either a primary or secondary outcome. Risk of bias was assessed based on study sample, measurement, and control of confounders. Differences between the follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle were analyzed using the standardized mean difference in effect size.

resultsThirty English-language studies published between 1930 and December 2019 were included in the systematic review, and 26 studies involving 318 women were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, there was a small but significant effect favoring increased RMR in the luteal phase (ES = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.17, 0.49, p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Limitations include risk of bias regarding measurement of both menstrual cycle and RMR. Sample sizes were small and studies did not report control of potential confounders. Sub-group analysis demonstrated that in more recent studies published since 2000, the effect of menstrual phase was reduced and not statistically significant (ES = 0.23; 95% CI = -0.00, 0.47; p = 0.055). Until larger and better designed studies are available, based on our current findings, researchers should be aware of the potential confounding influence of the menstrual cycle and control for it by testing consistently in one phase of the cycle when measuring RMR in pre-menopausal women.

Indexed as

Basal MetabolismMenstrual CycleFemaleHumansRest

Identifiers

PMID32658929
PMCPMC7357764
OpenAlexW3041624078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 OpenQuestion graph.