Trial reportBMJ sexual & reproductive health2025
Reusable menstrual hygiene products may lead to underdiagnosis of heavy menstrual bleeding: a randomised trial.
Trial report in BMJ sexual & reproductive health, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical diagnosis of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is dependent on patient report of menstrual product usage of pads and tampons, but it is unknown if newer reusable menstrual products (cup and underwear) are similarly diagnostic.
methodsWe enrolled 20 regularly menstruating individuals with HMB for two menstrual cycles. Participants completed a retrospective baseline Pictorial Blood loss Assessment Chart (PBAC) at the time of enrolment (eligibility PBAC score ≥100) as well as several different measures with each study cycle. In cycle 1, participants used study-provided disposable pads and tampons. For cycle 2, participants were randomised to menstrual cup or underwear and collected their menstrual fluid on their heaviest 2 days. We compared the two cycles with respect to the weight of menstrual fluid collected and the frequency of product changes and leaks during the heaviest days in cycles 1 and 2, as well as questionnaire responses.
resultsOverall, the mean rate of product changes per heaviest day were 5.5 disposable product changes (range 1.5-11), 3.6 cup changes (range 1.3-6.2), and 3.5 underwear changes (range 2.7-6.9). Both groups (cup users and underwear users) reported a median 3.5 leaks (range 1-5) per heaviest day in cycle 2, while using the menstrual cup or underwear. DISCUSSION: Participants reported fewer daily changes of reusable products compared with disposable ones, but more leaks, suggesting that 'rate of product change' with reusable products may result in missed diagnoses of HMB.
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.