Menstrual questionnaires for clinical and research use

Kristen A. Matteson
Best practice & research. Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology · 2016 · vol. 40 , pp. 44–54 · doi:10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2016.09.009 · PMID:27829537 · W2529301695
Review OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 4 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View on PubMed View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by gemini-2.5-flash-lite, 2026-06-07 ⓘ

This paper describes menstrual questionnaires for clinical and research applications.

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

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have the potential to be extremely valuable in the clinical care delivery for women who report heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). Increasingly, studies on HMB have incorporated PROMs to evaluate the impact of bleeding on quality of life. These measures have included semiquantitative charts and pictograms, questionnaires to assess symptoms and impact on quality of life, and health-related quality of life questionnaires. Recent systematic reviews have highlighted inconsistency of outcome measurement across studies on HMB as a challenge limiting the interpretability of the body of literature and the ability to generate consensus on the relative effectiveness of treatment options. Consequently, research initiatives and international collaborations are working to harmonize outcome measurement. Harmonizing the use of questionnaires in research and clinical care has the potential to improve patient-centered care delivery for women with HMB and improve the generation of patient-focused evidence-based guidelines for the evaluation and treatment of HMB.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

MeSH descriptors

Menorrhagia Menorrhagia Menorrhagia Menorrhagia Menstruation Patient Reported Outcome Measures Quality of Life Surveys and Questionnaires Female Humans Patient-Centered Care Physician-Patient Relations Practice Patterns, Physicians'

Citation neighborhood (2-hop)

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. Outer rings show 2-hop neighbours — papers reached through the immediate citers/citees. [ collapse to 1-hop ]

References (72)

Cited by (3)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
pubmed
last seen: 2026-10-08T21:18:51.237577+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-10-16T06:24:35.758740+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK