ReviewWellcome open research2025
The medicalisation of menstruation: a double-edged sword.
Review in Wellcome open research, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The intersection of menstrual and mental health is an under-researched area which is gaining attention from the public, researchers and clinicians. However, there may be unintended risks associated with this increased attention. Here we review some historical and cultural aspects of the well-intentioned medicalisation of menstruation and discuss their impact on gender (in)equality. Aims: To critically integrate lessons from the past into current momentum around improving women's healthcare. Method: Narrative review with interdisciplinary authorship including psychiatry, medical anthropology, and history. Results: We explore three exemplars. 19 Conclusions: Menstruation research occurs in the context of historical and ongoing sexism and the process of menstruation is currently highly stigmatised in many cultures. This makes the process of change complex and rife with 'double edged swords' whereby well-intentioned initiatives can have unintended effects. Researchers and clinicians in this area should be aware of how attention to menstruation and gendered difference can be misconstrued and used to inadvertently further gender-based disparities.
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.