Cited by 76Menstrual Health and DisordersMenopause: Health Impacts and TreatmentsEndometriosis Research and Treatment

Using the daily record of severity of problems as a screening instrument for premenstrual syndrome

Borenstein, Jeff E., Dean, Bonnie B., Yonkers, Kimberly A., Endicott, Jean·2007·Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess symptom ratings on the first day of menses to identify women at high risk of clinically significant premenstrual syndrome (PMS) who should undergo further evaluation. METHODS: A cohort of 697 women kept daily symptom ratings using the Daily Record of Severity of Problems (DRSP). The DRSP includes 21 symptom items grouped within 11 domains. DRSP scores on the first day of menses were calculated using the sum of all 21 items (standard method), the sum of the highest rated items within each domain (alternative method), and the sum of seven items derived from modeling. Seventy percent of the study sample was randomly assigned into a model-building set to identify optimal cutoff scores for PMS screening. The remaining 30% comprised a testing set used to compare PMS screening results to a PMS diagnosis based on two cycles of daily DRSP ratings. RESULTS: Of the initial study sample, 388 participants (55.7%) completed two cycles of daily ratings. The prevalence of PMS was 30.4%. In the model-building set, the positive and negative predictive values of the 21-item DRSP scores were 53.8% and 83.4% using the standard method and 52.7% and 84.0% using the alternative method. Corresponding values were 55.0% and 84.9% for an abbreviated seven-item DRSP version. These results were confirmed in the testing set. CONCLUSION: The DRSP administered on the first day of menses is an acceptable screening instrument to identify women who may have PMS.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.aog.0000259920.73000.3b

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Borenstein, J. E., Dean, B. B., Yonkers, K. A., & Endicott, J.
Affiliations
  • Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
2007-05
Volume
109
Issue
5
Pages
1068-1075
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2083162645
Cited by
76
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Menstrual Health and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Menopause: Health Impacts and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
Keywords
premenstrual syndrome, screening tool, symptom rating, cut-off values, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, menstrual symptoms, PMS prevalence
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Female, Health Status Indicators, Humans, Mass Screening, Medical Records, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Premenstrual Syndrome, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Severity of Illness Index, Risk Assessment

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