Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 305

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High prevalence of subtle and severe menstrual disturbances in exercising women: confirmation using daily hormone measures

Open access
De Souza, M.J., Toombs, R.J., Scheid, J.L., O'Donnell, E., West, S.L., Williams, N.I.·2010·Human Reproduction
DOI 10.1093/humrep/dep411
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The identification of subtle menstrual cycle disturbances requires daily hormone assessments. In contrast, the identification of severe menstrual disturbances, such as amenorrhea and oligomenorrhea, can be established by clinical observation. The primary purpose of this study was to determine the frequency of subtle menstrual disturbances, defined as luteal phase defects (LPD) or anovulation, in exercising women, with menstrual cycles of 26-35 days, who engage in a variety of sports, both recreational and competitive. Secondly, the prevalence of oligomenorrhea and amenorrhea was also determined via measurement of daily urinary ovarian steroids rather than self report alone. METHODS: Menstrual status was documented by daily measurements of estrone and pregnanediol glucuronide and luteinizing hormone across two to three consecutive cycles and subsequently categorized as ovulatory (Ovul), LPD, anovulatory (Anov), oligomenorrheic (Oligo) and amenorrheic (Amen) in sedentary (Sed) and exercising (Ex) women. RESULTS: Sed (n = 20) and Ex women (n = 67) were of similar (P > 0.05) age (26.3 +/- 0.8 years), weight (59.3 +/- 1.8 kg), body mass index (22.0 +/- 0.6 kg/m2), age of menarche (12.8 +/- 0.3 years) and gynecological maturity (13.4 +/- 0.9 years). The Sed group exercised less (P < 0.001) (96.7 +/- 39.1 versus 457.1 +/- 30.5 min/week) and had a lower peak oxygen uptake (34.4 +/- 1.4 versus 44.3 +/- 0.6 ml/kg/min) than the Ex group. Among the menstrual cycles studied in the Sed group, the prevalence of subtle menstrual disturbances was only 4.2% (2/48); 95.8% (46/48) of the observed menstrual cycles were ovulatory. This finding stands in stark contrast to that observed in the Ex group where only 50% (60/120) of the observed menstrual cycles were ovulatory and as many as 50% (60/120) were abnormal. Of the abnormal cycles in the Ex group, 29.2% (35/120) were classified as LPD (short, inadequate or both) and 20.8% (25/120) were classified as Anov. Among the cycles of Ex women with severe menstrual disturbances, 3.5% (3/86) of the cycles were Oligo and 33.7% (29/86) were Amen. No cycles of Sed women (0/20) displayed either Oligo or Amen. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that approximately half of exercising women experience subtle menstrual disturbances, i.e. LPD and anovulation, and that one third of exercising women may be amenorrheic. Estimates of the prevalence of subtle menstrual disturbances in exercising women determined by the presence or absence of short or long cycles does not identify these disturbances. In light of known clinical consequences of menstrual disturbances, these findings underscore the lack of reliability of normal menstrual intervals and self report to infer menstrual status.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/humrep/dep411

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
De Souza, M. J., Toombs, R. J., Scheid, J. L., O'Donnell, E., West, S. L., & Williams, N. I.
Venue
Human Reproduction
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2009-11-26
Volume
25
Issue
2
Pages
491-503
ISSN
  • 0268-1161 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2350
DOI
10.1093/humrep/dep411
OpenAlex
W2157129285
Cited by
305
References
4
FWCI
12.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.