ArticleBMC women's health2026
A persistent diagnostic gap: awareness and workup of bleeding disorders in heavy menstrual bleeding among Dutch gynecologists and hematologists.
Article in BMC women's health, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHeavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is common in the general population, affecting at least one-quarter of women of reproductive age. A bleeding disorder has been reported as an underlying cause of HMB in 30% of hospital-based outpatient population suffering from HMB. Despite this, bleeding disorders appear to be substantially underdiagnosed in HMB. Our primary objective is to evaluate the awareness and diagnostic work up regarding bleeding disorders in patients with HMB among gynecologists and hematologists in the Netherlands.
methodsAn online questionnaire was conducted in 2023. The survey was distributed by email, with an anonymous link to 1508 gynecologists and 646 hematologists.
resultsOf the 2154 emails sent, 211 surveys were analyzed: 149 from gynecologists and 62 from hematologists representing a 10% response rate. Most gynecologists (89%) estimated the prevalence of bleeding disorders in HMB to be below 15%, with 40% under 5%. In comparison, the majority of hematologists (77%) placed their estimate between 5% and 30%. Screening tools, including pre-visit questionnaires, medical history or laboratory evaluation, were not structurally used by gynecologists. Only 5% of gynecologists reported participating in multidisciplinary team meetings on bleeding disorders and HMB, compared to 34% of hematologists. Moreover, 94% of responding gynecologists reported seldom or never referring HMB patients to a hematologist.
conclusionsThis study highlights the underestimation of the prevalence of bleeding disorders among patients with HMB. Systematic screening for bleeding disorders in patients with HMB by gynecologists is largely lacking. These findings underscore the necessity of increasing awareness of bleeding disorders and to implement a structured diagnostic workup of HMB.
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.