ArticleArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024
Evaluation of menstrual blood loss (MBL) by self-perception and pictorial methods and correlation to uterine myometrial pathology.
Article 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. 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.
- Silent losses: predictors of anaemia and micronutrient deficiencies and their associations with menstrual bleeding in Lebanon - findings from a national cross-sectional study.BMJ global health · 2025Article
- Genetic and Epigenetic Components in the Pathogenesis of Adenomyosis and Endometriosis in Adolescents.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Sonographic and Clinical Progression of Adenomyosis and Coexisting Endometriosis: Long-Term Insights and Management Perspectives.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Co-occurrence of endometriosis and uterine fibroids: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Article
- Case Report: A patient with lynch syndrome with vaginal endometriosis-associated malignancy and synchronous colonic tubulovillous adenoma.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEvaluating menstrual blood loss (MBL) in primary healthcare is challenging. Our study aimed to assess MBL using two methods: self-perception and pictograms (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart-PBAC and Menstrual Pictogram superabsorbent polymer-c version-MP) in women undergoing transvaginal ultrasound (TVS).
methodsWe enrolled 221 premenopausal women with spontaneous menstruation, no hormonal therapy, and no ongoing pregnancy. They were divided into four age groups (12-20, 21-30, 31-40, and 41-55 years). Women self-reported normal (NMB) or heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) and filled out PBAC and MP. A PBAC score ≥ 150 and MP score ≥ 80 ml indicated HMB. TVS was conducted on all patients, recording any pelvic pathologies. We compared self-perception with pictograms across the cohort, age groups, and ultrasound findings.
resultsOf the cohort, 50.2% reported normal periods and 49.8% heavy periods. No significant differences were found between self-perception and pictograms in identifying NMB and HMB across all groups. However, significant differences were observed between PBAC and MP scores for NMB (56.1% vs 41.2%, p = 0.001) and HMB (43.9% vs 58.8%, p = 0.001), particularly in the 31-40 age group. Significant differences in PBAC and MP scores were noted between age groups 12-20 and 41-55, and 31-40 and 41-55. No significant differences were found between self-perception and pictograms regarding ultrasound findings like adenomyosis, fibroids, endometrial pathology, and uterine congenital malformations.
conclusionSelf-perception could be a reliable method for describing MBL across all age groups and ultrasound findings. Given the complexity and potential errors in using pictograms, clinicians should consider relying on self-perception for assessing menstrual cycle quantity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39614907What 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.