Assessment of patients with menorrhagia: How valid is a structured clinical history as a measure of health status?

Danny Ruta, Andrew Garratt, Yogesh Chadha, Gillian Flett, M. H. Hall, Ian Russell
In: Quality of Life Research · 1995 · vol. 4(1) , pp. 33–40 · doi:10.1007/bf00434381 · W2035655054
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 20 in-corpus citations
Limited metadata. Only one source feed has indexed this record so far — no abstract, full text, or open-access copy is available through Endo Lab. The publisher's page (linked below) is the canonical location for the actual content. If you have institutional access, use "Find at my library".
View at publisher → View on OpenAlex
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06+body, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

A questionnaire for menorrhagia based on a structured clinical history demonstrated good reliability and validity when compared to general health measures.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

⚙ AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

The paper developed and tested a patient-administered questionnaire for women with menorrhagia based on structured gynecologic history questions, using literature review to devise items, internal consistency and test-retest reliability checks, and validation against SF-36 general health scores and family practitioner perceptions of severity. The main sample included 351 women, with 246 referred to gynecology ambulatory clinics and 105 from four training practices in North-east Scotland, and two questions were discarded after testing. The final questionnaire showed good reliability and significant correlations between patient scores and SF-36 scale scores. This study does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (29)

Cited by (20)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-06-13T06:42:57.164913+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK