The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-018-0627-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Since the publication over 50 years ago of the alkaline hematin method for quantifying menstrual blood loss (MBL) many new approaches have been developed to assess MBL. The aim of this systematic review is to determine for methods of measuring MBL: ability to distinguish between normal and heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB); practicalities and limitations in the research setting; and suitability for diagnosing HMB in routine clinical practice.
Embase®™, MEDLINE®, and ClinicalTrials.gov were screened for studies on the development/validation of MBL assessment methods in women with self-perceived HMB, actual HMB or uterine fibroids, or patients undergoing treatment for HMB. Studies using simulated menstrual fluid and those that included women with normal MBL as controls were also eligible for inclusion. Extracted data included study population, results of validation, and advantages/disadvantages of the technique.
Seventy-one studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The sensitivity and/or specificity of diagnosing HMB were calculated in 16 studies of methods involving self-perception of MBL (11 pictorial), and in one analysis of the menstrual-fluid-loss (MFL) method; in 13 of these studies the comparator was the gold standard alkaline hematin technique. Sensitivity and specificity values by method were, respectively: MFL model, 89, 98%; pictorial blood loss assessment chart (PBAC), 58–99%, 7.5–89%; menstrual pictogram, 82–96%, 88–94%; models/questionnaires, 59–87%, 62–86%, and complaint of HMB, 74, 74%. The power of methods to identify HMB was also assessed using other analyses such as comparison of average measurements: statistical significance was reported for the PBAC, MFL, subjective complaint, and six questionnaires. In addition, PBAC scores, menstrual pictogram volumes, MFL, pad/tampon count, iron loss, and output from three questionnaires correlated significantly with values from a reference method in at least one study. In general, pictorial methods have been more comprehensively validated than questionnaires and models.
Every method to assess MBL has limitations. Pictorial methods strike a good balance between ease of use and validated accuracy of MBL determination, and could complement assessment of HMB using quality of life (QoL) in the clinical and research setting.
PRISMA registration number: CRD42016032956.
Additional file 1: Table S1. Full electronic search strategy of Embase®™ and Medline. (PDF 44 kb)12905_2018_627_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Additional file 2: Table S2. Advanced search of the ClinicalTrials.gov website. (PDF 32 kb)
Additional file 3: Table S3. Overview of types of validation performed, practicalities, and limitations of methods. (PDF 232 kb)12905_2018_627_MOESM3_ESM.pdf
Additional file 4: Table S4. Further validation of methods. (PDF 171 kb)12905_2018_627_MOESM4_ESM.pdf
Additional file 5: Table S5. Correlations of methods with established standards. (PDF 168 kb)12905_2018_627_MOESM5_ESM.pdf
Additional file 6: Table S6. Assessment of discriminatory power of methods for assessing MBL. (PDF 148 kb)12905_2018_627_MOESM6_ESM.pdf
Additional file 7: Completed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist. (PDF 133 kb)12905_2018_627_MOESM7_ESM.pdf
National Evidence Based Clinical Guidelines. Heavy menstrual bleeding. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg44?unlid=84830935220164267953. Accessed 16 Nov 2016.
Lukes AS, Baker J, Eder S, Adomako TL. Daily menstrual blood loss and quality of life in women with heavy menstrual bleeding. Women’s Health (Lond). 2012;8:503–11.
Matteson KA, Scott DM, Raker CA, Clark MA. The menstrual bleeding questionnaire: development and validation of a comprehensive patient-reported outcome instrument for heavy menstrual bleeding. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015;122:681–9. CrossRef
Herman MC, Penninx J, Geomini PM, Mol BW, Bongers MY. Choice of primary outcomes evaluating treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;123:1593–8. CrossRef
Quinn SD, Higham J. Outcome measures for heavy menstrual bleeding. BMC Women’s Health. 2016;12:21–6.
Warrilow G, Kirkham C, Ismail K, Wyatt K, Dimmock P, O'Brien S. Quantification of menstrual blood loss. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;6:88–92.
Barr F, Brabin L, Agbaje O. A pictorial chart for managing common menstrual disorders in Nigerian adolescents. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1999;66:51–3. CrossRef
Cheyne GA, Shepherd MM. Comparison of chemical and atomic absorption methods for estimating menstrual blood loss. J Med Lab Technol. 1970;27:350–4. PubMed
Mansfield PK, Voda A, Allison G. Validating a pencil-and-paper measure of perimenopausal menstrual blood loss. Women’s Health Issues. 2004;14:242–7.
Reid PC, Coker A, Coltart R. Assessment of menstrual blood loss using a pictorial chart: a validation study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2000;107:320–2. CrossRef
Tauxe WN. Quantitation of menstrual blood loss: a radioactive method utilizing a counting dome. J Nucl Med. 1962;3:282–7. PubMed
Zakherah MS, Sayed GH, El-Nashar SA, Shaaban MM. Pictorial blood loss assessment chart in the evaluation of heavy menstrual bleeding: diagnostic accuracy compared to alkaline hematin. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2011;71:281–4. CrossRef
Desai H, Raghavan KS, Mapa MK, Gupta AN. Quantitative estimation of menstrual blood loss. Ind J Med Res. 1982;75:827–30.
Newton J, Barnard G, Collins W. A rapid method for measuring menstrual blood loss using automatic extraction. Contraception. 1977;16:269–82. CrossRef
Vasilenko P, Kraicer PF, Kaplan R, deMasi A, Freed N. A new and simple method of measuring menstrual blood loss. J Reprod Med Obstet Gynecol. 1988;33:293–7.
Fraser IS, Warner P, Marantos PA. Estimating menstrual blood loss in women with normal and excessive menstrual fluid volume. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98:806–14. PubMed
Gleeson N, Devitt M, Buggy F, Bonnar J. Menstrual blood loss measurement with Gynaeseal. Aus New Zeal J Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;33:79–80. CrossRef
Reid PC, Virtanen-Kari S. Randomised comparative trial of the levonorgestrel intrauterine system and mefenamic acid for the treatment of idiopathic menorrhagia: a multiple analysis using total menstrual fluid loss, menstrual blood loss and pictorial blood loss assessment charts. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;112:1121–5. CrossRef
Biri A, Bozkurt N, Korucuoglu U, Yilmaz E, Tiras B, Guner H. Use of pictorial chart for managing menorrhagia among Turkish women. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2007;9:35–7.
Nahidi F, Bagheri L, Jannesari S, Majd HA. Relationship between delivery type and menstrual disorders: a case-control study. J Res Health Sci. 2011;11:83–90. PubMed
Shapley M, Redman CWE. Assessment of menstrual blood loss using a pictorial chart and endometrial sampling within the community. J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;15:123–4. CrossRef
Hald K, Lieng M. Assessment of periodic blood loss: interindividual and intraindividual variations of pictorial blood loss assessment chart registrations. J Min Invas Gynecol. 2014;21:662–8. CrossRef
Sowter M, Bidgood K, Richardson J. A comparative randomised trial of the effect of preoperative endometrial inhibition on the long-term outcome of transcervical endometrial resection. Gynaecol Endosc. 1997;6:33–7. CrossRef
Côté I, Jacobs P, Cumming D. Work loss associated with increased menstrual loss in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100:683–7. PubMed
Lee LK, Chen PCY, Lee KK, Kaur J. Menstruation among adolescent girls in Malaysia: a cross-sectional school survey. Singap Med J. 2006;47:869–74.
Sambrook AM, Elders A, Cooper KG. Microwave endometrial ablation versus thermal balloon endometrial ablation (MEATBall): 5-year follow up of a randomised controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;121:747–53. CrossRef
Santer M, Wyke S, Warner P. What aspects of periods are most bothersome for women reporting heavy menstrual bleeding? Community survey and qualitative study. BMC Women’s Health. 2007;7:8.
Toxqui L, Perez-Granados AM, Blanco-Rojo R, Wright I, Vaquero MP. A simple and feasible questionnaire to estimate menstrual blood loss: relationship with hematological and gynecological parameters in young women. BMC Women’s Health. 2014;14:71.
Schumacher U, Schumacher J, Mellinger U, Gerlinger C, Wienke A, Endrikat J. Estimation of menstrual blood loss volume based on menstrual diary and laboratory data. BMC Women’s Health. 2012;12:24.
Fraser IS, McCarron G, Markham R, Resta T. Blood and total fluid content of menstrual discharge. Obstet Gynecol. 1985;65:194–8. PubMed
El-Nashar SA. Pictorial blood loss assessment chart for quantification of menstrual blood loss: a systematic review. Gynecol Surg. 2015;12:157–63. CrossRef
Fathima A, Sultana A. Clinical efficacy of a Unani formulation 'Safoof Habis' in menorrhagia: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Integr Med. 2012;4:e315–22. CrossRef
Mirabi P, Dolatian M, Mojab F, Namdari M. Effects of valerian on bleeding and systemic manifestations of menstruation. J Med Plants. 2012;11:155–63.
Pattison H, Daniels JP, Kai J, Gupta JK. The measurement properties of the menorrhagia multi-attribute quality-of-life scale: a psychometric analysis. Br J Obestet Gynaecol. 2011;118:1528–31. CrossRef
- A systematic review of methods to measure menstrual blood loss
Julia L. Magnay
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet
Mail Icon II