ArticleBMC women's health2025
The prevalence and burden of heavy menstrual bleeding, and market access barriers of medical interventions with a focus on low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.
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. 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
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHeavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is defined as excessive menstrual blood loss that negatively affects physical, emotional, social, and quality of life (QoL) of women at reproductive age. The aim of this systematic scoping review was to map and summarize the available evidence on the prevalence, burden, treatment, and barriers to accessing treatment for HMB in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
methodsWe conducted a review of published data in nine databases and included studies published from 1 January 2000 to 28 October 2024. Covidence was used for screening and data extraction.
resultsWe identified 376 eligible studies conducted in 46 countries. Most of the studies (300, 80%) reported on the treatment of HMB (including 9 studies on treatment and burden), 55 reported on prevalence, 19 reported on burden (including 12 studies on burden and prevalence) and two studies reported on barriers to providing treatment. A total of 55 systematic reviews were included. Prevalence of HMB ranged from 5% to 58%, using a variety of diagnostic and reporting methods. Burdens of HMB included impaired QoL, mental health issues, economic burdens, and health concerns such as anemia. The use of a hormonal intrauterine device was the most commonly reported treatment for HMB (n = 120), followed by progestin (n = 41), combined oral contraceptives (n = 36), gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (n = 31), and tranexamic acid (n = 23). Thirty studies focused on herbal treatment. Lack of knowledge and misunderstanding of treatment options for HMB were mentioned as barriers for HMB treatment.
conclusionThe prevalence of HMB and the variety of treatment options available indicate that HMB is a condition that should not be underestimated and has a large impact on women’s health and well-being. There is a need for reliable, good-quality studies on the prevalence, burden, and treatment access barriers of HMB, especially in LMICs where HMB more often leads to iron deficiency anaemia.
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.