ArticleBMJ open2026
Menstrual blood as a research biospecimen: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough systemic blood testing is usually used for research, it is invasive and may limit accessibility and participant compliance. Menstrual blood is usually discarded but contains whole blood and diverse biomarkers with relevance to reproductive and systemic health. Evidence shows an overlap between menstrual and systemic blood, with additional unique biomarkers that may enhance research. Despite this, menstrual blood remains under-represented in research and no scoping or systematic reviews are currently available on this topic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will include peer-reviewed studies involving menstruating individuals from whom menstrual blood was collected for research. Eligible studies must examine menstrual blood collection methods, analytical approaches, feasibility or acceptability, biomarker identification and outcomes across any research setting.The search will be conducted in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and Web of Science Core Collections, without date or language restrictions. Screening of titles, abstracts and full texts will be performed in Covidence alongside the inclusion criteria. Data will be extracted using a standardised form capturing information on research purposes, the population, collection methods, sample handling, key outcomes and challenges. Extracted evidence will be summarised following JBI methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting standards. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not required. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This scoping review protocol has been registered with OSF (https://osf.io/prq3g/).
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.