ArticleBMC women's health2025
Development and validation of a premenstrual symptom screening tool for working women in relation to absenteeism.
Article in BMC women's health, 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.
- The Correlation between BASNEF Model Constructs, Mental Health, and Severity of Premenstrual Syndrome in Adolescents: A Structural Equation Modeling.International journal of school health · 2026Article
- Effect of Targeted Yoga Practice on PMS Symptoms, Body Composition, and Hip Mobility: An Eight-Week Pilot Study.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to develop and validate a screening tool tailored for working women to comprehensively assess premenstrual symptoms-including physical, psychological, and work-related domains-and to examine its reliability, validity, and association with absenteeism.
methodsIn October 2021, a multidisciplinary expert panel comprising a gynecologist, a psychosomatic physician, a psychologist, occupational health specialists, and data scientists developed a set of 47 original items. We then recruited 3,239 working women with menstruation via an internet research company and administered these items to assess PMS-related symptoms. For scale development, we conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, along with evaluations using Cronbach's alpha, receiver operating characteristic analysis, and logistic regression analysis.
resultsOf the participants, 331 women had experienced PMS (10%), and 393 women had taken sick leave because of PMS-associated symptoms (12%). Exploratory factor analyses with maximum likelihood and Promax rotation identified four domains with 27 items, including "Somatic symptoms'' (Cronbach's α = 0.93), "Psychological symptoms" (Cronbach's α = 0.94), "Lack of work efficiency" (Cronbach's α = 0.93), and "Abdominal symptoms" (Cronbach's α = 0.95). Using a split-half sample for the confirmatory factor analysis, the four-factor solution demonstrated acceptable model fit (RMSEA = 0.077, CFI = 0.928). The Average Variance Extracted values ranged from 0.54 to 0.68 across the four domains, and in all cases, the square root of AVE exceeded the corresponding inter-factor correlations, supporting the discriminant validity using the Fornell-Larcker criterion. We also confirmed the developed scale's criterion validity using existing PMS screening criteria and its concurrent validity through moderate correlation coefficients with Copenhagen Burnout Inventory scores. The receiver operating characteristic curve yielded a moderate construct ability for work absenteeism, including a sensitivity of 78%, a specificity of 57%, and an area under the curve of 0.735.
conclusionA moderately reliable and valid new scale for PMS for working women was developed with efficacy for screening for work absenteeism.
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.