可重复使用的月经卫生用品可能导致严重月经出血的诊断不足:一项随机试验。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES
Bethany Samuelson Bannow, Katrina Ramsey, Katherine Courchaine, Alison Edelman, Alyssa C Colwill
{"title":"可重复使用的月经卫生用品可能导致严重月经出血的诊断不足:一项随机试验。","authors":"Bethany Samuelson Bannow, Katrina Ramsey, Katherine Courchaine, Alison Edelman, Alyssa C Colwill","doi":"10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202541","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical diagnosis of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is dependent on patient report of menstrual product usage of pads and tampons, but it is unknown if newer reusable menstrual products (cup and underwear) are similarly diagnostic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled 20 regularly menstruating individuals with HMB for two menstrual cycles. Participants completed a retrospective baseline Pictorial Blood loss Assessment Chart (PBAC) at the time of enrolment (eligibility PBAC score ≥100) as well as several different measures with each study cycle. In cycle 1, participants used study-provided disposable pads and tampons. For cycle 2, participants were randomised to menstrual cup or underwear and collected their menstrual fluid on their heaviest 2 days. We compared the two cycles with respect to the weight of menstrual fluid collected and the frequency of product changes and leaks during the heaviest days in cycles 1 and 2, as well as questionnaire responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, the mean rate of product changes per heaviest day were 5.5 disposable product changes (range 1.5-11), 3.6 cup changes (range 1.3-6.2), and 3.5 underwear changes (range 2.7-6.9). Both groups (cup users and underwear users) reported a median 3.5 leaks (range 1-5) per heaviest day in cycle 2, while using the menstrual cup or underwear.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Participants reported fewer daily changes of reusable products compared with disposable ones, but more leaks, suggesting that 'rate of product change' with reusable products may result in missed diagnoses of HMB.</p>","PeriodicalId":9219,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reusable menstrual hygiene products may lead to underdiagnosis of heavy menstrual bleeding: a randomised trial.\",\"authors\":\"Bethany Samuelson Bannow, Katrina Ramsey, Katherine Courchaine, Alison Edelman, Alyssa C Colwill\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202541\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical diagnosis of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is dependent on patient report of menstrual product usage of pads and tampons, but it is unknown if newer reusable menstrual products (cup and underwear) are similarly diagnostic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We enrolled 20 regularly menstruating individuals with HMB for two menstrual cycles. Participants completed a retrospective baseline Pictorial Blood loss Assessment Chart (PBAC) at the time of enrolment (eligibility PBAC score ≥100) as well as several different measures with each study cycle. In cycle 1, participants used study-provided disposable pads and tampons. For cycle 2, participants were randomised to menstrual cup or underwear and collected their menstrual fluid on their heaviest 2 days. We compared the two cycles with respect to the weight of menstrual fluid collected and the frequency of product changes and leaks during the heaviest days in cycles 1 and 2, as well as questionnaire responses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, the mean rate of product changes per heaviest day were 5.5 disposable product changes (range 1.5-11), 3.6 cup changes (range 1.3-6.2), and 3.5 underwear changes (range 2.7-6.9). Both groups (cup users and underwear users) reported a median 3.5 leaks (range 1-5) per heaviest day in cycle 2, while using the menstrual cup or underwear.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Participants reported fewer daily changes of reusable products compared with disposable ones, but more leaks, suggesting that 'rate of product change' with reusable products may result in missed diagnoses of HMB.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9219,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202541\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202541","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:重度月经出血(HMB)的临床诊断依赖于患者对卫生巾和卫生棉条使用情况的报告,但尚不清楚更新的可重复使用月经产品(杯子和内衣)是否具有类似的诊断作用。方法:我们招募了20名月经规律的HMB患者,为期两个月经周期。参与者在入组时完成了回顾性基线图像失血评估图(PBAC)(合格PBAC评分≥100)以及每个研究周期的几种不同测量。在第一阶段,参与者使用研究提供的一次性卫生巾和卫生棉条。在月经周期2中,参与者被随机分配到月经杯或内衣,并在月经最重的2天收集月经液。我们比较了两个周期在第1和第2周期最重的日子里收集的月经液的重量和产品变化和泄漏的频率,以及问卷的回答。结果:总体而言,每个最重日的平均产品更换率为5.5个一次性产品更换(范围为1.5-11),3.6个杯子更换(范围为1.3-6.2),3.5个内衣更换(范围为2.7-6.9)。在使用月经杯或内衣时,两组(使用月经杯和内衣的人)报告说,在月经周期2最重的一天中,平均每天有3.5次渗漏(范围1-5)。讨论:与一次性产品相比,参与者报告的可重复使用产品的每日变化较少,但泄漏更多,这表明可重复使用产品的“产品变化速度”可能导致HMB漏诊。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reusable menstrual hygiene products may lead to underdiagnosis of heavy menstrual bleeding: a randomised trial.

Background: Clinical diagnosis of heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is dependent on patient report of menstrual product usage of pads and tampons, but it is unknown if newer reusable menstrual products (cup and underwear) are similarly diagnostic.

Methods: We enrolled 20 regularly menstruating individuals with HMB for two menstrual cycles. Participants completed a retrospective baseline Pictorial Blood loss Assessment Chart (PBAC) at the time of enrolment (eligibility PBAC score ≥100) as well as several different measures with each study cycle. In cycle 1, participants used study-provided disposable pads and tampons. For cycle 2, participants were randomised to menstrual cup or underwear and collected their menstrual fluid on their heaviest 2 days. We compared the two cycles with respect to the weight of menstrual fluid collected and the frequency of product changes and leaks during the heaviest days in cycles 1 and 2, as well as questionnaire responses.

Results: Overall, the mean rate of product changes per heaviest day were 5.5 disposable product changes (range 1.5-11), 3.6 cup changes (range 1.3-6.2), and 3.5 underwear changes (range 2.7-6.9). Both groups (cup users and underwear users) reported a median 3.5 leaks (range 1-5) per heaviest day in cycle 2, while using the menstrual cup or underwear.

Discussion: Participants reported fewer daily changes of reusable products compared with disposable ones, but more leaks, suggesting that 'rate of product change' with reusable products may result in missed diagnoses of HMB.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Medicine-Reproductive Medicine
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
6.10%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health is a multiprofessional journal that promotes sexual and reproductive health and wellbeing, and best contraceptive practice, worldwide. It publishes research, debate and comment to inform policy and practice, and recognises the importance of professional-patient partnership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信