Back

Assessing the relationship between menstrual products and reproductive and urogenital tract infections (RUTIs): a systematic review evaluating the evidence and recommendations for future research

Krause, A.; Zane, G. K.; Rivas-Nieto, A. C.; Mulugeta, A.; Hossain, M. R.; McClelland, R. S.; Lingappa, J. R.; Hawes, S. E.

2025-09-02 sexual and reproductive health
10.1101/2025.08.31.25334516
Show abstract

BackgroundConcerns regarding the effects of non-tampon menstrual products on reproductive and urogenital health, particularly the risk of infections, is an area of ongoing investigation. We conducted an updated systematic review to assess methodological quality of the current evidence assessing associations between menstrual product use and reproductive and urogenital infections (RUTIs), and offer recommendations for future research. MethodsThree databases (PubMed, Web of Science, United States Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer User Facility Device Experience) were searched for relevant published studies or product safety reports up to October 13, 2024. We included studies on menstruators of any age and geography assessing for any reusable/disposable menstrual pads, menstrual cups, or homemade alternatives worn only for menstrual absorbency compared to other menstrual products or no product use, with outcomes centered on RUTIs. Protocols, reviews, and studies assessing only tampons or non-menstrual absorbents were excluded. Results were evaluated and synthesized using tabular methods according to measures of association, and across four criteria categories 1) product definition, 2) comparator definition, 3) outcome definition, and 4) confounder consideration. ResultsThirty-one studies were included in this review. Most studies clearly defined outcomes and considered necessary confounders. In contrast, studies with well-defined products (6.5%) and comparator products (9.7%) were uncommon. Ten studies (32.2%) reported some data on four or more confounders, and seventeen (54.8%) defined their infectious outcomes and included laboratory confirmation. A meta-analysis was not possible due to data heterogeneity across product, comparator, and outcome definitions. Overall, associations between menstrual products and RUTIs are inconclusive. ConclusionFuture studies should 1) clearly define product and comparator type, material, frequency of change, and washing, drying, and storage practices for reusable products, 2) prioritize laboratory or clinician-confirmed outcomes over self-reported symptoms, and 3) adjust for relevant confounders.

Matching journals

1
PLOS ONE
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 1737 published papers
Top 12%
1.8× avg
2
Sexually Transmitted Infections
BMJ · based on 20 published papers
#1
170× avg
3
BMJ Open
BMJ · based on 553 published papers
Top 13%
2.3× avg
4
Scientific Reports
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 701 published papers
Top 45%
3.4%
5
npj Digital Medicine
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 85 published papers
Top 5%
4.2× avg
6
Human Reproduction
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 11 published papers
Top 0.7%
35× avg
7
BMC Medicine
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 155 published papers
Top 7%
3.5× avg
8
Journal of Medical Internet Research
JMIR Publications Inc. · based on 81 published papers
Top 8%
3.1× avg
9
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 19 published papers
Top 1%
17× avg
10
Preventive Medicine
Elsevier BV · based on 11 published papers
#1
35× avg
11
Journal of Clinical Investigation
American Society for Clinical Investigation · based on 50 published papers
Top 2%
9.9× avg
12
Health Expectations
Wiley · based on 12 published papers
Top 0.6%
23× avg
13
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
Fortune Journals · based on 18 published papers
Top 0.6%
15× avg
14
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
Frontiers Media SA · based on 22 published papers
Top 2%
10× avg
15
PLOS Global Public Health
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 287 published papers
Top 16%
1.5%
16
BMC Infectious Diseases
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 110 published papers
Top 11%
2.9× avg
17
PLOS Medicine
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 95 published papers
Top 10%
2.6× avg
18
JAMA Network Open
American Medical Association (AMA) · based on 125 published papers
Top 16%
0.9%
19
BMC Public Health
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 148 published papers
Top 20%
0.9%
20
BMJ Global Health
BMJ · based on 95 published papers
Top 11%
0.9%
21
JMIR Formative Research
JMIR Publications Inc. · based on 31 published papers
Top 4%
4.3× avg
22
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
Wiley · based on 12 published papers
Top 1%
12× avg
23
Systematic Reviews
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 11 published papers
Top 2%
9.5× avg
24
The Lancet Global Health
Elsevier BV · based on 24 published papers
Top 5%
3.4× avg