Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 817

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

Executive summary of the Stages of Reproductive Aging Workshop +10: addressing the unfinished agenda of staging reproductive aging

Open access
Harlow, Siobán D., Gass, Margery, Hall, Janet E., Lobo, Roger, Maki, Pauline, Rebar, Robert W., Sherman, Sherry, Sluss, Patrick M., de Villiers, Tobie J., for the Straw +10 Collaborative Group·2012·Climacteric

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to summarize the recommended updates to the 2001 Stages of Reproductive Aging Workshop (STRAW) criteria. The 2011 STRAW +10 reviewed advances in understanding of the critical changes in hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian function that occur before and after the final menstrual period. METHODS: Scientists from five countries and multiple disciplines evaluated data from cohort studies of midlife women and in the context of chronic illness and endocrine disorders on change in menstrual, endocrine, and ovarian markers of reproductive aging including antimüllerian hormone, inhibin-B, follicle-stimulating hormone, and antral follicle count. Modifications were adopted by consensus. RESULTS: STRAW +10 simplified bleeding criteria for the early and late menopausal transition, recommended modifications to criteria for the late reproductive stage (Stage -3) and the early postmenopause stage (Stage +1), provided information on the duration of the late transition (Stage -1) and early postmenopause (Stage +1), and recommended application regardless of women's age, ethnicity, body size, or lifestyle characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: STRAW +10 provides a more comprehensive basis for assessing reproductive aging in research and clinical contexts. Application of the STRAW +10 staging system should improve comparability of studies of midlife women and facilitate clinical decision making. Nonetheless, important knowledge gaps persist, and seven research priorities are identified.

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 · 10.3109/13697137.2011.650656

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

See all 817

Metadata

Authors
Harlow, S. D., Gass, M., Hall, J. E., Lobo, R., Maki, P., Rebar, R. W., Sherman, S., Sluss, P. M., de Villiers, T. J., & for the Straw +10 Collaborative Group
Venue
Climacteric
Published
2012-02-16
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
105-114
ISSN
  • 1369-7137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-0804
OpenAlex
W2787895246
Cited by
817
References
4
FWCI
24.16
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Executive summary of the Stages of Reproductive Aging Workshop +10: addressing the unfinished agenda of staging reproductive aging. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/13697137.2011.650656
The paper
Harlow, S. D., Gass, M., Hall, J. E., Lobo, R., Maki, P., Rebar, R. W., Sherman, S., Sluss, P. M., de Villiers, T. J., & for the Straw +10 Collaborative Group. (2012). Executive summary of the Stages of Reproductive Aging Workshop +10: addressing the unfinished agenda of staging reproductive aging. Climacteric. https://doi.org/10.3109/13697137.2011.650656

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.