ReviewArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Menstrual products: culprits or bystanders in endometriosis and adenomyosis pathogenesis?
Review in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Products that may reduce menstrual flow from the endometrial cavity to the vagina (i.e. tampons and menstrual cups) could facilitate retrograde menstruation and the spillage of blood into the myometrium, two mechanisms which could be major determinants in endometriosis and adenomyosis pathogenesis. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize the evidence regarding the mechanical role menstrual products may have in the pathogenesis of these two conditions. Evidence in this regard is inconclusive. While Darrow and colleagues observed that 14 or more years of tampon use were associated with endometriosis (OR 3.6; 95% CI, 1.04-13.5); in Meaddough and colleagues' retrospective study, the percentage of women using pads only was significantly higher among those with endometriosis than among those without the condition (31% vs 22%). Three further groups failed to find an association between endometriosis/adenomyosis and any type of menstrual product. The only case that may be considered as a sort of proof-of-concept of the association between products potentially reducing anterograde menstrual flow and endometriosis was reported by Spechler and colleagues, who described the case of a 41 year-old who developed endometriosis after having used a menstrual cup on a regular basis. However, the number of studies on the subject is scarce, study populations are exiguous and a greater attention to temporality of endometriosis onset in relation to when women started habitually using a specific menstrual product is needed. Confounding variables including type and quantity of endocrine disruptors contained in menstrual products should also be addressed. At the present moment, no recommendation can be provided on the safety of one type of menstrual product compared to another.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39198282What 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.