SynthesisPloS one2025
Assessing the relationship between menstrual products and reproductive and urogenital tract infections (RUTIs): A systematic review evaluating the evidence and recommendations for future research.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perspectives on engineering and biomaterials in tampon design: a review of device-tissue interactions and dysmenorrhea risk.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConcerns regarding the effects of non-tampon menstrual products on reproductive and urogenital health, particularly the risk of infections, is an area of ongoing investigation. We conducted an updated systematic review to assess the methodological quality of current evidence assessing associations between menstrual product use and reproductive and urogenital tract infections (RUTIs), and offer recommendations for future research.
methodsThree databases (PubMed, Web of Science, United States Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer User Facility Device Experience) were searched for relevant published studies or product safety reports up to October 13, 2024. We included studies on menstruators of any age and geography assessing for any reusable/disposable menstrual pads, menstrual cups, or homemade alternatives worn only for menstrual absorbency compared to other menstrual products or no product use, with outcomes centered on RUTIs. Protocols, reviews, and studies assessing only tampons or non-menstrual absorbents were excluded. Results were evaluated and synthesized using tabular methods according to measures of association, and assessed across four criteria categories 1) product definition, 2) comparator definition, 3) outcome definition, and 4) confounder consideration.
resultsThirty-one studies were included in this review. Most studies clearly defined outcomes and considered necessary confounders. In contrast, studies with well-defined products (6.5%) and comparator products (9.7%) were uncommon. Just 3.2% and 9.7% of studies fully defined products and comparators, respectively. Ten studies (32.2%) reported some data on four or more confounders, and seventeen (54.8%) defined their infectious outcomes and included laboratory confirmation. A meta-analysis was not possible due to data heterogeneity across product, comparator, and outcome definitions. Overall, associations between menstrual products and RUTIs are inconclusive.
conclusionFuture studies should 1) clearly define product and comparator type, material, frequency of change, and washing, drying, and storage practices for reusable products, 2) prioritize laboratory or clinician-confirmed outcomes over self-reported symptoms, and 3) adjust for relevant confounders.
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.