The FIGO recommendations on terminologies and definitions for normal and abnormal uterine bleeding
Abstract
Over the past 5 years there has been a major international discussion aimed at reaching agreement on the use of well-defined terminologies to describe the normal limits and range of abnormalities related to patterns of uterine bleeding. This article builds on concepts previously presented, which include the abandonment of long-used, ill-defined, and confusing English-language terms of Latin and Greek origin, such as menorrhagia and metrorrhagia. The term DYSFUNCTIONAL UTERINE BLEEDING should also be discarded. Alternative terms and concepts have been proposed and defined. The terminologies and definitions described here have been comprehensively reviewed and have received wide acceptance as a basis both for routine clinical practice and for comparative research studies. It is anticipated that these terminologies and definitions will be reviewed again on a regular basis through the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics Menstrual Disorders Working Group.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The FIGO classification for volume of menstrual flow is heavy (>80 mL), normal (5-80 mL), and light (<5 mL).
“The FIGO classification for volume of menstrual flow is heavy (>80 mL), normal (5–80 mL), and light (<5 mL)”
The FIGO recommendation for defining normal menstruation and menstrual cycle characteristics includes four parameters: regularity of menses, frequency of menses, and duration and heaviness of menstrual flow.
“The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) recommendation for defining normal menstruation and menstrual cycle characteristics includes four parameters: regularity of menses, frequency of menses, and duration and heaviness of menstrual flow (39).”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 22 · Cited by 384
- Authors
- Fraser, I., Critchley, H., Broder, M., & Munro, M.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- MRC Centre for Reproductive Health (GB)
- Partnership for Health Analytic Research (US)
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Venue
- Seminars in Reproductive Medicine
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2011-09
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 05
- Pages
- 383-390
- ISSN
- 1526-4564 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-8004
- OpenAlex
- W2323213852
- Cited by
- 384
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 7.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Seminars in Reproductive Medicine (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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
- Keywords
- abnormal uterine bleeding, menstrual disorders, terminology, definitions, menorrhagia, metrorrhagia, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, menstrual pattern
- MeSH terms
- Congresses as Topic, Female, Humans, International Cooperation, Menstruation, Menstruation Disturbances, Terminology as Topic, Risk Factors, Uterine Hemorrhage, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Risk Assessment, Evidence-Based Medicine
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
