Randomized, double-blind crossover study of vaginal microflora and epithelium in women using a tampon with a "winged" apertured film cover and a commercial tampon with a nonwoven fleece cover.
(17/43)
Sanitary product use by white, black, and Mexican American women.
(21/43)
In 1988-89, the use of menstrual sanitary products was surveyed among 699 white, 477 black, and 425 Mexican American women to detect age and racial or ethnic differences in product use that might explain the differences in the incidence of toxic shock syndrome (TSS) in these demographic categories. Forty percent of the women had never used tampons. Significantly more whites used tampons alone (26 percent) or with pads (36 percent) than did blacks. Proportionately more blacks used tampons alone (16 percent) or with pads (27 percent) compared with Mexican Americans, 11 percent of whom used tampons alone and 21 percent of whom used tampons and pads. Since a substantial proportion of black women used tampons, racial-ethnic variations in use patterns alone cannot completely explain the low incidence of TSS among black women. Tampon use started in the early teen years, but women in the age group 20-29 had the highest frequency of use of tampons either alone (26 percent) or with pads (33 percent). These percentages suggest that age-related differences in product use may not explain the age-related differences in the incidence of TSS. Fear was the most common specific reason for not using tampons in response to information about TSS. Decreased use of tampons in response to information about TSS was reported by 39 percent of whites, 50 percent of blacks, 46 percent of Mexican Americans, and by 36 percent of women less than 19 years, 41 percent of 20-29-year-olds, and 47 percent of women 30 years and older. (+info)
FLOW (finding lasting options for women): multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing tampons with menstrual cups.
(22/43)
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether menstrual cups are a viable alternative to tampons. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Prince George, Victoria, and Vancouver, BC. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 110 women aged 19 to 40 years who had previously used tampons as their main method of menstrual management. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized into 2 groups, a tampon group and a menstrual cup group. Using online diaries, participants tracked 1 menstrual cycle using their regular method and 3 menstrual cycles using the method of their allocated group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall satisfaction; secondary outcomes included discomfort, urovaginal infection, cost, and waste. RESULTS: Forty-seven women in each group completed the final survey, 5 of whom were subsequently excluded from analysis (3 from the tampon group and 2 from the menstrual cup group). Overall satisfaction on a 7-point Likert scale was higher for the menstrual cup group than for the tampon group (mean [standard deviation] score 5.4 [1.5] vs 5.0 [1.0], respectively; P=.04). Approximately 91% of women in the menstrual cup group said they would continue to use the cup and recommend it to others. Women used a median of 13 menstrual products per cycle, or 169 products per year, which corresponds to approximately 771,248,400 products used annually in Canada. Estimated cost for tampon use was $37.44 a year (similar to the retail cost of 1 menstrual cup). Subjective vaginal discomfort was initially higher in the menstrual cup group, but the discomfort decreased with continued use. There was no significant difference in physician-diagnosed urovaginal symptoms between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Both of the menstrual management methods evaluated were well tolerated by subjects. Menstrual cups are a satisfactory alternative to tampons and have the potential to be a sustainable solution to menstrual management, with moderate cost savings and much-reduced environmental effects compared with tampons. Trial registration number C06-0478 (ClinicalTrials.gov). (+info)
Effective treatment of heavy and/or prolonged menstrual bleeding without organic cause: pooled analysis of two multinational, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of oestradiol valerate and dienogest.
(23/43)
Odorous vaginal discharge - a case study for thorough investigation.
(24/43)
Odorous vaginal discharge is a common presentation to general practitioners, and a frequent presentation for bacterial infections and sexually transmissible diseases. Busy GPs may be tempted to make a diagnosis from the clinical history and symptoms, and prescribe antibiotics as a first line treatment. This case highlights an unusual cause of persistent odorous vaginal discharge. If a thorough examination had not been conducted, the cause would have been overlooked, first line antibiotics would most likely have been ineffective, and potentially life threatening consequences may have occurred. (+info)