SynthesisBMC women's health2024
Prevalence of menstrual alterations following COVID-19 vaccination: systematic review & meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC women's health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Menstrual disturbance associated with COVID-19 vaccines: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2025Pooled it
- Inflammatory mechanisms of menstrual cycle changes following COVID-19 vaccination in adolescents.Vaccine · 2026Article
- Robust Bayesian Model Averaging Meta-Analysis of Menstrual Disorders in COVID-19 Survivors: A Methodological Meta-Analysis Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCOVID-19 vaccines can lead to diverse local and systemic side effects, but there is limited evidence concerning their association with menstrual cycle changes. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of menstrual cycle alterations after COVID-19 vaccination among adult women.
methodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, Web of Science and Science Direct databases for observational studies that included adult women and investigated the range of menstrual alterations. The quality of the studies was evaluated via the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. All the data were analyzed via Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software Version 4.0. Forest plots were created to calculate the individual and pooled prevalence rates of different types of menstrual changes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) via fixed-effects and random-effects models, as appropriate. Heterogeneity was assessed with Q statistics and the I
resultsEleven studies, encompassing 26,283 adult women, met our eligibility criteria. Among the selected studies, five were cohort studies, five were cross-sectional studies, and one employed a case‒control design. The menstrual changes included abnormal cycle duration, dysmenorrhea, irregular cycles, and abnormal cycle flow (heavy and light flow), with pooled percentages of 27.3% (CI: 7.2-64.6%), 22% (CI: 5.2-59.4%), 16% (CI: 5.8-37.2%), 11.7% (CI: 5.8-22%), and 5.5% (CI: 2.3-12.5%), respectively.
conclusionsThis review highlights the prevalence of menstrual changes after COVID-19 vaccination and emphasizes the importance of considering menstrual health as an integral part of postvaccination monitoring and health care interventions. However, longitudinal studies are essential for establishing a definitive causal relationship between COVID-19 vaccination and menstrual alterations.
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.