Cited by 14Menstrual Health and DisordersEndometriosis Research and TreatmentReproductive Health and Contraception

Measuring Menstrual Discomfort: A Comparison of Interview and Diary Data

Open access

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Menstrual discomfort is common among women of reproductive age and can be debilitating. The accuracy of self-report of menstrual discomfort is unknown. METHODS: At enrollment into the DES Reproductive Health Study in 1990, premenopausal women classified their frequency of any menstrual discomfort as "always," "often," "sometimes," and "never." Subsequently, women provided daily diary information for up to 6 months regarding any menstrual discomfort and medication used for menstrual pain. RESULTS: A total of 324 women contributed data on 4 or more menstrual cycles in the prospective study. At enrollment, 10% had reported never having menstrual discomfort. Of these, 65% recorded at least 1 day of menstrual discomfort during follow-up. For the 27% who had reported always having discomfort, 88% recorded discomfort in all cycles. The enrollment statement of discomfort was more strongly correlated with the percentage of cycles in which women took medication for menstrual pain; respondents who said they never had menstrual discomfort reported use of pain medication in 3% of cycles; sometimes, 36%; often, 67%; and always, 92%. The average number of days per cycle with prospectively recorded menstrual discomfort was also correlated with the enrollment response. CONCLUSIONS: A single question regarding frequency of menstrual discomfort was positively correlated with prospectively recorded menstrual discomfort and especially with pain requiring medication.

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 · 10.1097/ede.0b013e318187ac9e

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Because women with PCOS often have less frequent menstrual cycles, the symptom of dysmenorrhea could be attenuated, making it less likely to consider endometriosis as a comorbidity.

    “Because women with PCOS often have less frequent menstrual cycles, the symptom of dysmenorrhea could be attenuated,47 making it less likely to consider endometriosis as a comorbidity.”

    From Examining the co-occurrence of endometriosis and polycystic ovarian syndrome (2023) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Results report that discomfort peaked on the first two days of bleeding, but do not examine whether having fewer menstrual cycles attenuates dysmenorrhea. The paper's focus is how reported discomfort compares with diary records; our copy does not address PCOS or the proposed effect of infrequent cycles (searched: PCOS, infrequent cycles, menstrual pain). The inference about considering endometriosis follows the citation and is not treated as attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jukic, A. M. Z., Weinberg, C. R., Baird, D. D., Hornsby, P. P., & Wilcox, A. J.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Jukic, Anne Marie Zaura
Venue
Epidemiology
Published
2008-11
Volume
19
Issue
6
Pages
846-850
ISSN
1044-3983 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2066221681
Cited by
14
References
29
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (Z99-ES999999)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Menstrual Health and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Endometriosis Research and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
Keywords
menstrual discomfort, dysmenorrhea, self-report accuracy, daily diary, premenopausal women, menstrual cycle
MeSH terms
Adult, Dysmenorrhea, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cohort Studies

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