ArticleAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology2025
Menstrual product use patterns in a large digital cohort in the United States: variations by sociodemographic, health, and menstrual characteristics.
Article in American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effect of menstrual cups on vaginal health, reproductive tract and urogenital infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EBioMedicine · 2026Pooled it
- Digital Tools for the Recognition and Triage of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Perspectives on engineering and biomaterials in tampon design: a review of device-tissue interactions and dysmenorrhea risk.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Female Menstrual Cup Causing Renal Colic, Hydronephrosis, and Ureteral Stricture: A Case Report.Clinical practice and cases in emergency medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUsing menstrual products is a part of managing menstrual bleeding. Product use may represent individual, social, and economic influences. A few studies on menstrual product use from specific regions in the United States reported differences in use across demographic factors like age and race and ethnicity.
objectiveTo evaluate menstrual product use patterns and how they vary by sociodemographic, health, and menstrual characteristics in a large US cohort. STUDY
designWe used data from 11,455 participants across the United States from the Apple Women's Health Study, an ongoing mobile application-based US cohort, who provided consent, enrolled between November 2019 and January 2024, and responded to relevant surveys. Data included age, race and ethnicity, ancestry, gender identity, socioeconomic status, gynecological conditions, menstrual characteristics, use of menstrual products (panty liners, sanitary napkins or pads, regular tampons, super-absorbent tampons, a combination of pads or tampons but not used together, internal cup menstrual collection device, period underwear, or other), and whether sleeping with a tampon among tampon users. We obtained the percentages and 95% confidence intervals of each product use, overall and by several characteristics. We used chi-square tests and 95% confidence intervals to compare percentages across categorical characteristics.
resultsOverall, the prevalence of regular tampons use was 48%, followed by pads (47%), panty liners (43%), super-absorbent tampons (36%), period underwear (20%), cups (18%), a combination of pads or tampons but not used together (18%), other products (2%), and no product (4%). Among tampon users, 61% sleep with a tampon. Compared to individuals aged 30 to 39 years, those aged <20 years were more likely to use pads (57% [95% confidence interval: 53-61] vs 45% [95% confidence interval: 43-46]) and less likely to use cups (12% [95% confidence interval: 10-15] vs 21% [95% confidence interval: 19-22]) or period underwear (17% [95% confidence interval: 14-20] vs 22% [95% confidence interval: 21-23]), and those aged ≥50 years were less likely to use regular tampons (32% [95% confidence interval: 28-36] vs 50% [95% confidence interval: 48-52]). Compared to non-Hispanic White participants, those who self-identified as Asian, Hispanic, or non-Hispanic Black were less likely to use tampons (37% [95% confidence interval: 31-42], 39% [95% confidence interval: 36-43], 31% [95% confidence interval: 27-35] vs 50% [95% confidence interval: 49-51]); Asian or Hispanic individuals were less likely to use cups (15% [95% confidence interval: 11-18], 15% [95% confidence interval: 13-17] vs 19% [95% confidence interval: 18-20]). Compared to those with high socioeconomic status, participants with lower socioeconomic status used pads more frequently (50% [95% confidence interval: 48-52] vs 42% [95% confidence interval: 41-44]). Compared to those without any gynecological conditions, those with endometriosis were more likely to use super-absorbent tampons (38% [95% confidence interval: 35-41] vs 33% [95% confidence interval: 32-35]). Those with longer bleed days used pads more often than those with shorter bleed days; similar patterns were seen for super-absorbent tampons or period underwear (P values < .05).
conclusionIn this cohort, tampons and pads were reported with high frequency, in contrast to the low frequency for period underwear/cups. Use differed by sociodemographic, health, and menstrual characteristics. Our findings provide insights into menstrual product use among US adults, informing discussions among clinicians, policymakers, and patients regarding menstrual management.
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.