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).
RCT Entities:
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).
Authors: Shameem Z Jaumdally; Heidi E Jones; Donald R Hoover; Hoyam Gamieldien; Jean-Mari Kriek; Nontokozo Langwenya; Landon Myer; Jo-Ann S Passmore; Catherine S Todd Journal: Am J Reprod Immunol Date: 2017-01-23 Impact factor: 3.886
Authors: Leah P Chisholm; Elisabeth M Sebesta; Stephanie Gleicher; Melissa Kaufman; Roger R Dmochowski; William Stuart Reynolds Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2022-07-17 Impact factor: 2.367
Authors: Penelope A Phillips-Howard; Elizabeth Nyothach; Feiko O Ter Kuile; Jackton Omoto; Duolao Wang; Clement Zeh; Clayton Onyango; Linda Mason; Kelly T Alexander; Frank O Odhiambo; Alie Eleveld; Aisha Mohammed; Anna M van Eijk; Rhiannon Tudor Edwards; John Vulule; Brian Faragher; Kayla F Laserson Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jane Juma; Elizabeth Nyothach; Kayla F Laserson; Clifford Oduor; Lilian Arita; Caroline Ouma; Kelvin Oruko; Jackton Omoto; Linda Mason; Kelly T Alexander; Barry Fields; Clayton Onyango; Penelope A Phillips-Howard Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Anna Maria van Eijk; Kayla F Laserson; Elizabeth Nyothach; Kelvin Oruko; Jackton Omoto; Linda Mason; Kelly Alexander; Clifford Oduor; Aisha Mohammed; Alie Eleveld; Isaac Ngere; David Obor; John Vulule; Penelope A Phillips-Howard Journal: Reprod Health Date: 2018-08-17 Impact factor: 3.223
Authors: Laura A Warren; Andrew Shih; Susana Marquez Renteira; Tamer Seckin; Brandon Blau; Kim Simpfendorfer; Annette Lee; Christine N Metz; Peter K Gregersen Journal: Mol Med Date: 2018-03-19 Impact factor: 6.354
Authors: Anna Maria van Eijk; Garazi Zulaika; Madeline Lenchner; Linda Mason; Muthusamy Sivakami; Elizabeth Nyothach; Holger Unger; Kayla Laserson; Penelope A Phillips-Howard Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2019-07-16
Authors: Michael A Mitchell; Steve Bisch; Shannon Arntfield; Seyed M Hosseini-Moghaddam Journal: Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol Date: 2015 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.471
Authors: Penelope A Phillips-Howard; George Otieno; Barbara Burmen; Frederick Otieno; Frederick Odongo; Clifford Odour; Elizabeth Nyothach; Nyanguara Amek; Emily Zielinski-Gutierrez; Frank Odhiambo; Clement Zeh; Daniel Kwaro; Lisa A Mills; Kayla F Laserson Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2015-08-21 Impact factor: 2.681