ArticlemHealth2024
Women's comfort with mobile applications for menstrual cycle self-monitoring following the overturning of
Article in mHealth, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Examining physical activity and menstrual cycle experiences among insufficiently active women: Project PACE protocol.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Multimodal large language models for women's reproductive mental health.Archives of women's mental health · 2025Review
- The recent history and near future of digital health in the field of behavioral medicine: an update on progress from 2019 to 2024.Journal of behavioral medicine · 2025Review
- Precision Prevention: Using Data to Target the Right Intervention at the Right Intensity in the Right Community at the Right Time.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The overturning of Methods: A total of 206 women aged 18-60 years who were identified as pre- or perimenopausal completed an anonymous, cross-sectional survey between August and November 2022. Results: Most respondents had experience using a MC app at the time of reporting; 53.4% (n=110) were current users, and an additional 48 participants had used MC tracking apps in the past. Over one-third of participants (38.3%; n=75) indicated that they had reconsidered using such an app because of current events; 30.3% (n=59) preferred methods of MC tracking that did not involve app-based technology, and 34.2% (n=67) reported that they are not willing to participate in research that involves daily tracking of the MC. Conclusions: Overall, the feasibility of menstruation-related research that includes mobile apps is fairly low, given women's current comfort with this technology compared to the Roe era, and there is a need to establish criteria and protections for use of mobile apps in women's health research.
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.