The review indicates that menstrual cups are a safe option for menstruation management

The first systematic review and meta-badysis of the international use of menstrual cups, including 43 studies and data from 3,300 women and girls – published in The Lancet Public Health newspaper, suggests that they are safe and cause leaks similar or even inferior to those of disposable towels or pads.

As part of the review, four studies (293 participants) compared leaks between different hygiene products and found that levels were similar between cupping, towels and menstrual pads, while 39, a study had revealed that leaks were significantly lower.

On a global scale, the rules can affect girls' schooling and women's work experience, increase their susceptibility to urobad infections if they use poor quality sanitary products and even make women and girls the target of badual violence or coercion when they do not have the necessary funds. to buy them. There is an increasing number of initiatives in high-income and low-income countries to combat the "period of poverty", so it is essential that decision-makers know which health products to include in menstrual health programs and educational materials for puberty.

"Despite the fact that 1.9 billion women worldwide have their menses – an average of 65 days a year to manage menstrual blood flow, there are few quality studies comparing hygiene products. "says Professor Penelope Phillips-Howard, principal author of the Liverpool School. of tropical medicine, United Kingdom. "We sought to solve this problem by summarizing current knowledge about leaks, safety and acceptability of menstrual cups, comparing them to other products as far as possible."

This study combines data from medical studies and gray literature (conference summaries, reports and theses) for which participants reported their experiences with menstrual cups or their willingness to use them. The authors selected 43 studies involving 3,319 participants in low- and middle-income countries (15 countries) and in high-income countries (28 studies). They also gathered aggregate information on the availability and costs of menstrual cups, made preliminary estimates of waste savings, and examined puberty materials to determine the extent to which menstrual cups are considered an option.

The authors note that the quality of the included studies was low and call for more quality research in this area, and note that further studies are needed on the cost-effectiveness and environmental effects between different menstrual products. In the review, some of the information is extracted from unpublished reports in peer-reviewed journals and the purpose of some studies is to evaluate other topics. Some data came from previous studies, when reporting requirements were less stringent or menstrual cups were no longer available. Most studies were based on self-report, which may have overestimated the use of the menstrual cup.

Menstrual cups collect blood flow rather than absorb it as with tampons and tampons. Like tampons, they are inserted into the bad, before being emptied every 4 to 12 hours. There are currently two types: a generally bell-shaped badl cup and a cervical cup placed around the uterine cervix high in the bad, in the manner of a diaphragm for contraception. The materials used to make them are silicone, rubber, latex or medical grade elastomers and can last up to 10 years.

This review identifies products commonly used in PRFMs, namely, fabrics, cotton, tissue paper and other pieces of fabric, as well as disposable pads. Leaks and friction are a common concern.

Four studies from the journal, involving 293 participants, directly compared leaks between menstrual cups and disposable towels or tampons. Leaks were similar in three studies and significantly less in menstrual cups for one study. In some studies, leakage was badociated with unusually heavy bleeding, unusual anatomy of the uterus, the need to increase cup size, incorrect cup placement and cup filling.

There was no risk of infection badociated with the use of menstrual cups in European, North American and African women and girls. Five cases of toxic shock syndrome have been reported as a result of their use, but since the total number of menstrual cup users is unknown, it is not possible to compare the risk of toxic shock syndrome between menstrual cups. and other products. In four studies involving a total of 507 women, the use of the menstrual cup showed no adverse effects on the badl flora. In the studies of the bad and cervix during follow-up, no tissue lesions were found when using a menstrual cup.

Difficulties in removing cups, requiring professional badistance, have been reported twice for badl cups and 47 times for cervical cups. Some women use them in combination with intrauterine devices and, in 13 cases, removal of the cup was badociated with dislodgement of the IUD. They suggest that the combination of an IUD and the use of a menstrual cup might require further studies. The authors identified five women who reported pain, three badl wounds, six allergies or rashes and nine of the urinary tract complaints.

Results from 13 of the studies suggest that about 70% of women wanted to continue using menstrual cups once mastered. Interview-based studies have found that practice, peer support and training are essential for participants to find success. In six qualitative studies, participants suggested that adoption of the menstrual cup required a familiarization phase during several menstrual cycles. The authors note that information and follow-up on correct use may need to be part of menstrual health programs.

The review suggests that knowledge of menstrual cups as an option is low. Three studies in high-income countries found that only 11 to 33% of women were aware of it. Of the 69 websites containing puberty education materials in 27 countries, 77% mentioned disposable towels and 65% used tampons, while only 30% mentioned menstrual cups and 22% mentioned reusable towels.

Preliminary evidence of the cost and waste savings badociated with the use of menstrual cups suggests that after 10 years, a single menstrual cup could be much less expensive than towels or tampons. The authors identified 199 cup brands available in 99 countries at prices ranging from $ 0.72 to $ 46.72. A cup can cost about 5% or 7% of the cost of using 12 towels (on average 0.31 USD each) or tampons (on average 0.21 USD each) per period. Plastic waste could also be reduced. Over a period of 10 years, it is estimated that a cup creates 0.4% of the plastic waste generated by single-use towels or 6% of those produced with the help of tampons. The authors note that the cost and waste estimates are only illustrations and do not take into account the combined use of menstrual products, inflation or production costs.

Given the limited number of reports on the use of menstrual cups, the authors also pointed out that other potential problems can not be excluded, including the use of menstrual cups in combination with IUDs. Further international research will be needed to provide more information on acceptability, monitor adverse events, evaluate best practices to shorten the familiarization phase and more reliably badess cost-effectiveness and efficiency. the effects on the environment.

Julie Hennegan of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the United States writes in a related commentary: "For consumers who buy menstrual products, the results highlight cups as a safe and cost-effective option. Educational resources do not provide a complete overview of products for making informed choices. The authors found that menstrual cups were poorly known and that only 30% of the websites offering menarche educational materials contained information on menstrual cups. "