Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37408999›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in reproductive health2023

The safety assessment of tampons: illustration of a comprehensive approach for four different products.

Anne E Hochwalt, Joan M Abbinante-Nissen, Lisa C Bohman, Anne M Hattersley, Ping Hu, Jan L Streicher-Scott, Amber G Teufel, Kara E Woeller

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in reproductive health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03478371 (In-use Randomized, Cross-over, Controlled Double-blind Study of Four Different Tampons), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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.

NCT03478371 nacompletednot on this map

In-use Randomized, Cross-over, Controlled Double-blind Study of Four Different Tampons

TypeinterventionalSponsorProcter and GambleRan2018 to 2018Enrolled94ConditionsMenstruationArmstampon D, tampon M, tampon T, tampon V
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Estrogenic activity in tampon products.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2026
    Article
  3. Integrating experimental data and mechanistic modeling to assess potential lead exposure from tampon use.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Heavy metal contamination in tampons: A hidden public health concern.Environmental analysis, health and toxicology · 2025
    Article
  10. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anne E HochwaltRWTS, LLC, West Chester, OH, United States.
Joan M Abbinante-NissenBaby, Feminine and Family Care, Global Product Stewardship, The Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
Lisa C BohmanData Modeling and Sciences, The Procter & Gamble Company, Mason, OH, United States.
Anne M HattersleyGlobal Safety Surveillance and Analysis, The Procter & Gamble Company, Mason, OH, United States.
Ping HuCorporate Biosciences, The Procter & Gamble Company, Mason, OH, United States.
Jan L Streicher-ScottBaby, Feminine and Family Care Clinical Sciences, The Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
Amber G TeufelBaby, Feminine and Family Care Microbiology, The Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
Kara E WoellerBaby, Feminine and Family Care, Global Product Stewardship, The Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, OH, United States.
Procter & Gamble (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: We illustrate a comprehensive tampon safety assessment approach that assures products can be used safely. Material biocompatibility, vaginal mucosa assessment, vaginal microbiome evaluation, and Methods/Results: Each product is comprised mostly of large molecular weight components (cotton, rayon, polymers) that cannot pass the vaginal mucosa, are widely used across the industry, and replete with a vast body of safety data and a long history of safe use in the category. Quantitative risk assessment of all small molecular weight components assured a sufficient margin of safety supporting their use. Vaginal mucosa assessment confirmed that pressure points, rough edges and/or sharp contact points were absent. A randomized cross-over clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03478371) revealed favorable comfort ratings, and few complaints of irritation, burning, stinging, or discomfort upon insertion, wear, and removal. Adverse events were few, mild in severity, self-limited and resolved without treatment. Vaginal microbiota assessment Discussion: The data from the four elements of the comprehensive safety assessment approach illustrated herein confirm that tampons evaluated using this system can be used safely for menstrual protection. A post-marketing surveillance system that monitors and responds to in-market experiences indicated in-use tolerability of the product among consumers, thus confirming the conclusions of the pre-marketing safety assessment.

Indexed as

biocompatibilitypost marketing surveillancesafety assessmentstaphylococcal toxic shock syndrometamponvaginal microbiomevaginal mucosa

Identifiers

PMID37408999
PMCPMC10319135
OpenAlexW4381429567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.