Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34991109›Full record

ArticleObstetrics and gynecology2022

Association Between Menstrual Cycle Length and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccination: A U.S. Cohort.

Alison Edelman, Emily R Boniface, Eleonora Benhar, Leo Han, Kristen A Matteson, Carlotta Favaro, Jack T Pearson, Blair G Darney

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Obstetrics and gynecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 135 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
135citing papers in PubMed, 7 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

135 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

75 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Alison EdelmanDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon; Natural Cycles USA Corp, New York, New York; the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Women & Infants Hospital, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island; Oregon Health & Science University-Portland State University, School of Public Health, Portland, Oregon; and the National Institute of Public Health, Center for Population Health Research, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico.
Emily R Boniface
Eleonora Benhar
Leo Han
Kristen A Matteson
Carlotta Favaro
Jack T Pearson
Blair G Darney

Funding

Improving emergency contraceptive effectiveness in obese womenR01HD089957 · NICHD · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI EDELMAN, ALISON B · 2017 to 2021
$1.7M
NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD089957
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is associated with changes in cycle or menses length in those receiving vaccination as compared with an unvaccinated cohort.

methodsWe analyzed prospectively tracked menstrual cycle data using the application "Natural Cycles." We included U.S. residents aged 18-45 years with normal cycle lengths (24-38 days) for three consecutive cycles before the first vaccine dose followed by vaccine-dose cycles (cycles 4-6) or, if unvaccinated, six cycles over a similar time period. We calculated the mean within-individual change in cycle and menses length (three prevaccine cycles vs first- and second-dose cycles in the vaccinated cohort, and the first three cycles vs cycles four and five in the unvaccinated cohort). We used mixed-effects models to estimate the adjusted difference in change in cycle and menses length between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts.

resultsWe included 3,959 individuals (vaccinated 2,403; unvaccinated 1,556). Most of the vaccinated cohort received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (55%) (Moderna 35%, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen 7%). Overall, COVID-19 vaccine was associated with a less than 1-day change in cycle length for both vaccine-dose cycles compared with prevaccine cycles (first dose 0.71 day-increase, 98.75% CI 0.47-0.94; second dose 0.91, 98.75% CI 0.63-1.19); unvaccinated individuals saw no significant change compared with three baseline cycles (cycle four 0.07, 98.75% CI -0.22 to 0.35; cycle five 0.12, 98.75% CI -0.15 to 0.39). In adjusted models, the difference in change in cycle length between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts was less than 1 day for both doses (difference in change: first dose 0.64 days, 98.75% CI 0.27-1.01; second dose 0.79 days, 98.75% CI 0.40-1.18). Change in menses length was not associated with vaccination.

conclusionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is associated with a small change in cycle length but not menses length.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesFemaleHumansMenstrual CycleSARS-CoV-2VaccinationCOVID-19 Vaccines

Identifiers

PMID34991109
PMCPMC8936155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.