Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40096188›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2025

Menstrual cycle effects on cognitive performance: A meta-analysis.

Daisung Jang, Jack Zhang, Hillary Anger Elfenbein

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. The influence of sex on cognition in psychosis.Schizophrenia research. Cognition · 2026
    Article
  3. Rethinking Clinical Visibility in Autistic Females: Autistic Camouflaging and Menstrual Cycle Variability.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Review
  4. [Impulse control disorder: patients with pituitary adenomas and dopaminergic agonists].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
    Article
  5. Gendering the Menstrual Cycle in Behavioral Neuroendocrinology.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Daisung JangMelbourne Business School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7624-5678
Jack ZhangNanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Nanyang, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4530-875X
Hillary Anger ElfenbeinOlin Business School, Washington University in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3973-1447

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Does a woman's cognitive performance change throughout her menstrual cycle? Menstruation continues to be a taboo topic, subject to myths about how it affects women. Despite the considerable number of empirical studies, there have been few quantitative summaries of what is known. To address this gap, we conducted a meta-analysis of cognitive performance across the menstrual cycle, including the domains of attention, creativity, executive functioning, intelligence, motor function, spatial ability, and verbal ability. We included studies that measured women's performance at specific points in the cycle for tasks that have objectively correct responses. Our analysis examined performance differences across phases using Hedges' g as the effect size metric. Across 102 articles, N =  3,943 participants, and 730 comparisons, we observe no systematic robust evidence for significant cycle shifts in performance across cognitive performance. Although two results appeared significant with respect to differences in spatial ability, they arise from a large number of statistical tests and are not supported in studies that use robust methods to determine cycle phase. Through the use of Egger's test, and examination of funnel plots, we did not observe evidence of publication bias or small-study effects. We examined speed and accuracy measures separately within each domain, and no robust differences across phases appeared for either speed or accuracy. We conclude that the body of research in this meta-analysis does not support myths that women's cognitive abilities change across the menstrual cycle. Future research should use larger sample sizes and consistent definitions of the menstrual cycle, using hormonal indicators to confirm cycle phase.

Indexed as

CognitionMenstrual CycleAttentionExecutive FunctionFemaleHumans

Identifiers

PMID40096188
PMCPMC11913300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.