Is retrograde menstruation a universal, recurrent, physiological phenomenon? A systematic review of the evidence in humans and non-human primates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY QUESTION: What are the quantitative, qualitative, and temporal patterns of retrograde mentruation? SUMMARY ANSWER: The extreme quantitative and qualitative heterogeneity of the available studies prevents the definitive conclusion that retrograde menstruation is a universal and consistent phenomenon during the reproductive period. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Retrograde menstruation has been defined as a universal, physiological phenomenon that occurs similarly in about 90% of menstruators during the reproductive period. However, uncertainties still exist in terms of the event frequency, total amount, and cellular composition of retrograde menstruation and the differences between individuals with versus those without endometriosis. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Two systematic reviews were performed, one for human studies, and one for non-human primate studies. We retrieved studies from the PubMed and Embase databases published between 1 January 1980 and 1 November 2023. Studies published in the English language were included and identified using a combination of MeSH terms. References from relevant publications were systematically screened and further articles were identified using PubMed's 'similar articles' and 'cited by' functions. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Results were reported in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Studies that did not report original data or provided a review of the field were excluded. Bias analysis was completed for each included human study by using the Newcastle-Ottawa scoring system. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Fifteen studies were finally included in the human systematic review, mostly with limited sample sizes. The macroscopic visualization of blood in PF during menses was reported with a frequency ranging from 9% to 100%. A prevalence of endometrial cells detected in peritoneal fluid ranging from 8% to 75% was reported in the various studies. Controversial findings were reported in relation to patients with endometriosis. Retrograde menstruation has been evaluated cross-sectionally on single occasions, and no information is available on the course of the phenomenon within an entire cycle and between subsequent cycles. Two studies were included in the non-human primate systematic review; one of them showed that retrograde menstruation was observed more frequently in baboons with naturally occurring endometriosis (83%) than in those with a normal pelvis (51%). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: In humans, peritoneal fluid has often been collected at different cycle phases and not systematically during menstruation. The indication for laparoscopy was not always clear for all participants. A wide variety of methods were used to detect endometrial cells, including cytological staining, cell block analysis, immunocytochemistry, and various methods of cell culture. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: The idea that almost all women experience retrograde menstruation regularly and similarly during their reproductive life is currently unsubstantiated. It is an academic notion accepted uncritically. Development of endometriosis may derive from differences in the frequency or severity of the event. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The review was partially funded by Italian Ministry of Health-Current Research IRCCS. P.Vi. serves as co-editor in Chief of Journal of Endometriosis and Uterine Disorders. E.S. serves as Editor in Chief of Human Reproduction Open and discloses research grants from Ferring, Ibsa, Gedeon Richter, and Theramex, and honoraria from Ibsa and Gedeon Richter. P.Ve. serves as Associate Editor for Human Reproduction Open; is a member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada, of the Italian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and of the International Editorial Board of Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica; has received royalties from Wolters Kluwer for chapters on endometriosis management in the clinical decision support resource UpToDate; and maintains both a public and private gynecological practice. All other authors declare they have no conflict of interest. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".