Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34559839›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Exploring menstrual products: A systematic review and meta-analysis of reusable menstrual pads for public health internationally.

Anna Maria van Eijk, Naduni Jayasinghe, Garazi Zulaika, Linda Mason, Muthusamy Sivakami, Holger W Unger, Penelope A Phillips-Howard

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
10.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Unmet need, Practice, Perception, and Predictors of Menstrual Cup use Among Medical and Paramedical Students and Staffs: A Cross-Sectional Study from Eastern India.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Environmental impact of menstrual hygiene products.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Anna Maria van EijkDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1635-1289
Naduni JayasingheDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Garazi ZulaikaDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1452-6225
Linda MasonDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Muthusamy SivakamiTata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, India.
Holger W UngerDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Penelope A Phillips-HowardDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1018-116X
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine · GBTata Institute of Social Sciences · IN

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/N006046/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGirls and women need effective, safe, and affordable menstrual products. Single-use menstrual pads and tampons are regularly provided by agencies among resource-poor populations. Reusable menstrual pads (RMPs: fabric layers sewn together by an enterprise for manufacture of menstrual products) may be an effective alternative.

methodsFor this review (PROSPERO CRD42020179545) we searched databases (inception to November 1, 2020) for quantitative and qualitative studies that reported on leakage, acceptability, or safety of RMPs. Findings were summarised or combined using forest plots (random-effects meta-analysis). Potential costs and environmental savings associated with RMPs were estimated.

resultsA total of 44 studies were eligible (~14,800 participants). Most were conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC, 78%), and 20% in refugee settings. The overall quality of studies was low. RMP uptake in cohort studies ranged from 22-100% (12 studies). One Ugandan trial among schoolgirls found leakage with RMPs was lower (44.4%, n = 72) compared to cloths (78%, n = 111, p<0.001). Self-reported skin-irritation was 23.8% after 3 months among RMP-users in a Ugandan cohort in a refugee setting (n = 267), compared to 72.8% at baseline with disposable pad use. There were no objective reports on infection. Challenges with washing and changing RMP were reported in LMIC studies, due to lack of water, privacy, soap, buckets, and sanitation/drying facilities. Among 69 brands, the average price for an RMP was $8.95 (standard deviation [sd] $5.08; LMIC $2.06, n = 10, high-income countries [HIC] $10.11), with a mean estimated lifetime of 4.3 years (sd 2.3; LMIC 2.9, n = 11; HIC 4.9 years, n = 23). In 5-year cost-estimates, in LMICs, 4-25 RMPs per period would be cheaper (170-417 US$) than 9-25 single-use pads, with waste-savings of ~600-1600 single-use pads. In HICs, 4-25 RMPs would be cheaper (33-245 US$) compared to 20 single-use tampons per period, with waste-savings of ~1300 tampons.

conclusionRMPs are used internationally and are an effective, safe, cheaper, and environmentally friendly option for menstrual product provision by programmes. Good quality studies in this field are needed.

Indexed as

Menstrual Hygiene ProductsEquipment ReuseFemaleHumansMenstruationPublic Health

Identifiers

PMID34559839
PMCPMC8462722
OpenAlexW3199293475

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.