MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415791773 · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-25048-2

A scoping review of identifying research on menstruation and menstrual cycle among female athletes of low and low-and-middle-income countries

2025· review· en· W4415791773 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mehjabin Tishan Mahfuz, Faria Razzaque Shejuty, Shayla Sharmin, Sudipta Das Gupta, Sarker Masud Parvez, Nishantika Neheer, Quamrun Nahar

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMenstrual Health and Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGlobal Affairs Canada
KeywordsAthletesBiostatisticsMenstruationMenstrual cyclePublic healthEpidemiologySports medicineMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Menstruation involve intricate physiological, social, cultural, religious, and psychological factors that deeply impact women and girls globally. Disparities in access to menstrual products, facilities, information, and social support are evident between high-income countries (HICs) and low-income countries (LICs). Female athletes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) encounter distinct challenges due to limited research on the significant effects of menstruation on their daily lives as well as athletic performance. This scoping review investigates existing research on menstruation's influence on female athletes in LMICs, proposes research gaps, and propose future study directions. METHOD: We conducted a scoping review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-Ext) guidelines. We systematically searched multiple databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, and Google Scholar, to identify peer-reviewed publications, grey literature, and relevant sources. Our inclusion criteria required articles to contain at least one performance-related parameter related to menstruation or explore at least one menstrual phase among LMICs and LICs athletes. RESULT: Our initial search yielded 1490, of which 88 potential articles were considered after title and abstract screening. After duplicate screening, 26 studies met our inclusion criteria. Eighteen studies employed a cross-sectional research design from adolescence to the 30s. Ten studies specifically focused on investigating the menstrual cycle (MC) and its impact on athletes, while five articles focused on physiology and six examined both physiology and the MC. Eight studies explored performance, while two reported on the intersection of performance. CONCLUSION: The research on female athletes from LMICs requires a more consistent focus on menstruation's impact on athletes' well-being and performance. This scoping review underscores the urgent need for more in-depth, longitudinal, and quantifiable research that explicitly emphasizes the unique needs of athletes from LMICs. By gaining deeper insights into their experiences, barriers, and impact on performance and health, we can enhance these athletes' overall well-being and broader social, cultural, and gender equality agendas.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.501
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicMenstrual Health and DisordersFrench-language works237,207