ArticleFertility and sterility2026
Neighborhood disadvantage and menstrual disturbances in a preconception cohort.
Article in Fertility and sterility, 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
Abstract
objectiveNeighborhood disadvantage is associated with adverse reproductive health outcomes, but its association with menstrual disturbances is understudied. Our objective was to estimate the association between neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage and prevalence of menstrual disturbances (abnormal uterine bleeding and dysmenorrhea).
designWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 8,198 participants in Pregnancy Study Online, an internet-based preconception cohort study, enrolled during October 2014-September 2024. SUBJECTS: Participants were aged 21-39 years, US residents, and not using contraceptives or fertility treatment. EXPOSURE: We linked within-state Area Deprivation Index percentiles to residential addresses by block group and year.
main outcome measuresWe used self-reported data on typical menstrual cycle characteristics to define abnormal uterine bleeding (irregular cycles, duration of flow ≥7 days, heavy bleeding, or cycle length <24 or >38 days) and dysmenorrhea (severe pain requiring medication use and bed rest). We estimated prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for associations of Area Deprivation Index quartiles with abnormal uterine bleeding and dysmenorrhea using modified Poisson regression models.
resultsNeighborhood disadvantage was positively associated with the prevalence of abnormal uterine bleeding (most [Q4] vs. least disadvantaged [Q1] quartile: prevalence ratio = 1.16, 95% CI: 1.05-1.29) and dysmenorrhea (Q4 prevalence ratio = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.12-1.85) in models adjusted for age, year, parent's educational attainment, race, and ethnicity. After further adjustment for participant household income, the association between neighborhood disadvantage and abnormal uterine bleeding prevalence was attenuated (Q4 prevalence ratio = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.89-1.10), whereas neighborhood disadvantage was positively, nonmonotonically associated with dysmenorrhea prevalence (Q2 prevalence ratio = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.13-1.74; Q3 prevalence ratio = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.13-1.77; and Q4 prevalence ratio = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.93-1.56).
conclusionLiving in a more disadvantaged neighborhood was associated with a higher prevalence of menstrual disturbances, particularly dysmenorrhea.
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.