MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982269850 · doi:10.1108/amhid-05-2019-0015

Current evidence for the identification and management of premenstrual syndrome in women with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review

2019· review· en· W2982269850 on OpenAlexaff
Nina Cooper, D. Nair, Sile Egan, Andrew Barrie, Bhathika Perera

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenstrual Health and Disorders
Canadian institutionsLearning Partnership
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationIntellectual disabilityMedicinePillPsychiatryLevonorgestrelMoodMental healthClinical psychologyPsychologyFamily planningNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Intellectual disability (ID) is prevalent in 1 per cent of the population. Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) affects up to 5 per cent of the general population of adult women. Identification of PMS is challenging in women with ID due to differences in communication. Management of PMS in the ID population requires careful consideration of baseline function, co-existing mental and physical health problems, drug interactions as well as complex ethical considerations. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach Prospero-registered systematic review (CRD42019119398) of papers exploring the diagnosis and management of patients with PMS and ID ( n =414). In total, 35 relevant titles were identified and 27 full text papers were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 10 studies for final qualitative analysis. Findings Ten original research papers were included. There are no standardised symptom criteria for diagnosis of PMS in women with ID. Studies relied on observer-reported data. All papers demonstrated higher rates of PMS in women with ID compared with the general adult population. Management was not standardised and varied between centres. Mainstays of treatment included non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, combined oral contraceptive pills and intramuscular progesterone. Newer evidence suggests levonorgestrel intrauterine systems may be appropriate. There was no quantitative method of establishing success of management. Practical implications A modified symptom diary should be used for diagnosis in this population. Differentiation between cyclical behavioural change due to pain vs mood disturbance remains challenging. Conservative, psychological and medical management should be the mainstay of treatment, with surgery considered in exceptional cases. Originality/value This paper demonstrates the current limited evidence for the management of PMS in women with a diagnosis of ID and offers an overview of the current options for managing these patients’ symptoms.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Mental Health and Intellectual DisabilitiesSame topicMenstrual Health and DisordersFrench-language works237,207