ReviewObstetrical & gynecological survey2026
Heavy Menstrual Bleeding in the Gynecology Clinic: A Call for Awareness and Standardized Screening for Underlying Bleeding Disorders.
Review in Obstetrical & gynecological survey, 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
importanceHeavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is a common problem existing in nearly 30% of women worldwide. An underlying bleeding disorder has been identified as a cause of HMB in a significant proportion of women seeking gynecological care for HMB. In practice, however, there is a significant underdiagnosis of bleeding disorders in these patients, highlighting a need for improvement in awareness and detection.
objectiveTo present a comprehensive review of the literature on HMB and bleeding disorders and to increase awareness of their interrelation. In addition, to propose a standardized diagnostic approach to help identify which women with HMB may have an underlying bleeding disorder and require further hemostatic evaluation. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature review was performed using PubMed to identify relevant primary research and review articles on the topic of HMB and bleeding disorders in English. This was supplemented by manual reference searches and review of relevant guidelines in English and Dutch.
resultsA significant proportion (10% to as much as 62%) of women with HMB have an underlying bleeding disorder, yet many such disorders go unrecognized. Various screening instruments, particularly the validated PBAC, Philipp tool or self-BAT, can help distinguish between HMB with or without a suspected bleeding disorder, and indicate who needs additional hemostatic evaluation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: An underlying bleeding disorder is far more frequent in HMB than currently appreciated. Gynecologists should be aware of this and be familiar with screening instruments and a diagnostic workflow for bleeding disorders. Multidisciplinary collaboration between gynecology and hematology is crucial for accurately diagnosing and managing potential bleeding disorders in women with 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.