ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2025
General practitioner consultation for postmenopausal bleeding after COVID-19 vaccination-a self-controlled cohort study.
Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- General practitioner consultation for postmenopausal bleeding after COVID-19 vaccination-a self-controlled cohort study.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Article
- A national pharmacovigilance centre perspective on pandemic preparedness -Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe incidence of postmenopausal bleeding (PMB) has been increasing over the past years. Little is known about the risk of PMB after COVID-19 vaccination. Our study aimed to investigate this based on routine general practitioner (GP) healthcare data from the Netherlands.
methodsA retrospective self-controlled cohort study was performed, which included women aged ≥50 years who received at least 1 COVID-19 vaccination in 2021 and were registered in the GP databases of Nivel (the Nivel Primary Care Database, Nivel-PCD) or PHARMO by 1 January 2021. GP consultations for PMB in the exposed period (28 days after each COVID-19 vaccination) were compared with the nonexposed period (all-time outside the exposed period). Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated using Poisson regression, adjusting for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the study follow-up period.
resultsA total of 692 760 COVID-19 vaccinated women aged ≥50 years were included. No increased GP consultations for PMB was observed for all COVID-19 vaccines together, as well as when stratifying the results by vaccine type (mRNA vs. vector) and vaccine brand (Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson). After the second Moderna dose an adjusted IRR of 1.47 (95% confidence interval: 0.93-2.32) was observed and after the third Pfizer/BioNTech dose an adjusted IRR of 1.33 (95% confidence interval: 0.92-1.93); however, these results were not statistically significant.
conclusionNo increased number of GP consultations for PMB in primary care was observed after COVID-19 vaccination in general, nor for any of the COVID-19 vaccine brands, vaccine doses or potential risk groups.
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.