CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 173Menstrual Health and DisordersGynecological conditions and treatmentsPlatelet Disorders and Treatments

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Determination of total menstrual blood loss

Open access
Wyatt, Katrina M, Dimmock, Paul W, Walker, Tracy J, O’Brien, P.M.Shaughn·2001·Fertility and Sterility
DOI 10.1016/s0015-0282(01)01847-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To develop and validate a simple method of measuring total menstrual blood loss using a pictorial representation of blood loss, the menstrual pictogram.Design A prospective evaluation of total menstrual blood loss measurement by the menstrual pictogram compared to the alkaline hematin technique.Setting Academic menorrhagia research clinic.Patient(s) One hundred twenty-one women; 62 women complaining of heavy menstrual blood loss, 59 women who considered their menstrual blood loss to be normal.Intervention(s) Participants were asked to complete the menstrual pictogram through the period and collect their feminine hygiene products for an alkaline hematin assessment.Main outcome measure(s) Percentage agreement between blood loss measured by the gold standard alkaline hematin method and the menstrual pictogram. Extraneous blood loss was measured using a semiquantitative pictorial method.Result(s) The menstrual pictogram had a high level of agreement for blood collected on feminine hygiene products compared with the alkaline hematin method. Some women also lose a significantly large amount of extraneous blood, which is not proportional to the alkaline hematin blood loss assessment.Conclusion(s) The menstrual pictogram provides a simple means of measuring menstrual blood loss. It is no longer appropriate to ignore extraneous blood loss, particularly as there is no correlation between extraneous blood loss and that measured on feminine hygiene products.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0015-0282(01)01847-7

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 173

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wyatt, K. M., Dimmock, P. W., Walker, T. J., & O’Brien, P. M. S.
Affiliations
Royal Stoke University Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Wyatt, Katrina M
ORCID
Venue
Fertility and Sterility
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2001-07
Volume
76
Issue
1
Pages
125-131
ISSN
0015-0282 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0015-0282(01)01847-7
OpenAlex
W1981673830
Cited by
173
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 11
FWCI
4.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Fertility and Sterility (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Menstrual Health and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Gynecological conditions and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Hematology › Platelet Disorders and Treatments
Keywords
menstrual blood loss, menorrhagia, menstrual products
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Gynecology, Hemin, Humans, Menorrhagia, Menstruation, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Reference Values, Menstrual Hygiene Products

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review