SynthesisEBioMedicine2026
Effect of menstrual cups on vaginal health, reproductive tract and urogenital infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in EBioMedicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe menstrual cup is a device inserted into the vagina during menstruation to collect blood. Evidence of its effect on the vaginal microbiome and associations with laboratory-confirmed infections is limited. We compiled existing information to assess associations between menstrual cups and reproductive tract infections (RTIs), sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and the vaginal microbiome.
methodsWe searched four databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Global Health, and Scopus, from inception to January 23, 2026) for trials or observational studies reporting on menstrual cup use and laboratory-confirmed RTIs, STIs and the vaginal microbiome. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for trials and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Cohort Studies. Outcomes of interest between cup-users and users of alternative menstrual products (non-cup users) were compared using prevalence ratios (PR). Meta-analyses were conducted using fixed-effects models to generate pooled estimates. PROSPERO registration: CRD42024559595.
findingsEleven studies involving 10,268 participants were included. Only three studies were considered of good quality. In two randomised controlled studies in Kenya, menstrual cups reduced the risk of STIs relative to non-cup users (adjusted PR [aPR] 0.74, 95% CI 0.60-0.91, p = 0.037, n = 695, I
interpretationMenstrual cups reduced the risk of STIs in Kenya. For bacterial vaginosis, the association was consistent with a protective effect and supportive for a healthy vaginal microbiome composition in studies from different geographies. These data strengthen evidence on the value of menstrual cups as a global multipurpose menstrual product solution.
fundingUK-Medical Research Council, Medical Research Foundation, USA-National Institutes of Health; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the Gates Foundation.
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.