Evaluation of menstrual blood loss (MBL) by self-perception and pictorial methods and correlation to uterine myometrial pathology

Consuelo Russo, Mario Palumbo, Sabrina Reppuccia, Giuseppe Gabriele Iorio, Elvira Nocita, Giulia Monaco, Federica Iacobini, Giorgia Soreca, C. Exacoustós
In: Research Square · 2024 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4528850/v1 · W4400110781
preprint OA: green CC0
📄 Open PDF View on OpenAlex View at publisher
⚙ AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06+body, 2026-06-08 ⓘ

This study assessed menstrual blood loss using self-perception and pictorial methods in women undergoing ultrasound, finding self-perception to be a reliable indicator across age groups and pathologies.

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, 2026-06-09 ⓘ

This prospective observational study enrolled 221 premenopausal women undergoing transvaginal ultrasound and compared menstrual blood loss (MBL) assessment by self-perception versus pictorial methods (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart [PBAC] and Menstrual Pictogram [MP]), using cutoffs of PBAC ≥150 and MP ≥80 ml for heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB). Across all age groups and after assigning normal MBL (NMB) vs HMB by self-report and pictogram thresholds, the authors found no significant differences between self-perception and pictograms for identifying NMB and HMB; however, PBAC and MP scores differed significantly from each other for both NMB and HMB, especially in the 31–40 age group. The paper reports that there were no significant differences between self-perception and pictograms when stratified by ultrasound-detected pelvic pathologies, including adenomyosis, fibroids, endometrial pathology, and uterine congenital malformations, with sampling limited to women who were not on hormones and had no ongoing pregnancy. This paper is centrally about endometriosis and adenomyosis in the sense that it evaluates whether MBL self-perception or pictograms correlate with ultrasound diagnosis of adenomyosis (and records endometriosis using IDEA terminology), though the main comparison is the reliability of MBL measurement methods rather than endometriosis biology.

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)

Outcome instruments

MUSA

Citation neighborhood (sparse)

Too few in-corpus citations on either side for a chart; here are the lists.

Cites (4)

References (23)

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-06-18T06:35:04.414907+00:00
openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK