A one-year observational cohort study of menstrual cramps and ovulation in healthy, normally ovulating women.

This is a prospective, observational community cohort study with the objective of investigating menstrual cramp occurrence related to ovulatory characteristics. Women reported cramp intensity on daily Menstrual Cycle Diary© records over one year. Ovulation and luteal phase lengths were assessed by validated Quantitative Basal Temperature© (QBT) analysis. Healthy, normal-weight, non-smoking community dwelling premenopausal women ages 21-41 years with two consecutive, normally ovulatory, normal-length menstrual cycles were enrolled. All 53 women, with 13.6 ± 2.8 cycles per woman, reported at least one cramp episode of median intensity 1.5 [0-4 scale; range 1.0-3.5], and 2.2 days' [range 1.0-10.2] duration. Within the 49 women who experienced all ovulatory cycle types (normal, short luteal length [SLL < 10 days] and anovulatory), median cramp intensity was greater in normal-length cycles having subclinical ovulatory disturbances (SLL and anovulatory; median 1.4 [range 0.0-2.8]) than in normally ovulatory cycles (median 1.2 [range 0.0-2.3]) (P = 0.023). Cramp Scores did not differ by ovulatory status within the 19 women having both normally ovulatory and anovulatory cycles (P = 0.222). Within-woman 1-year Cramp Scores were not different in anovulatory and normally ovulatory menstrual cycles but were more intense with ovulatory disturbances.

Introduction

Menstrual cramps (primary dysmenorrhea) are highly prevalent, affecting over 60% of adult women in Canada and between 17 and 80% of premenopausal women worldwide[1,2]. Despite this, the pathophysiology of dysmenorrhea is not yet completely understood. In current literature, it is generally asserted that cramps only occur in ovulatory cycles[3-7]. This hypothesis was introduced in an article by Dawood et al. (1981)[3] and has been repeated in multiple reviews and primary articles since, including those describing cramps in menstruating adolescents[4-13]. There remains, however, a lack of primary data that documents both cramps and ovulation in support of this hypothesis.

A potential physiologic explanation for the premise that cramps occur only in ovulatory cycles is that the drop in progesterone levels prior to flow triggers the release of the prostaglandins (particularly PGF2α) that cause menstrual cramps[3,4,14]. Although it is clear that prostaglandins cause cramps, it has been demonstrated in a primate model that both estradiol and progesterone stimulate PGF2α production. Also, levels of both estradiol and progesterone decrease before menstruation[15]. Furthermore, there are other findings that call into question the relationship between ovulation and cramps. For example, in adolescent women, the cycle-by-cycle prevalence of menstrual cramps appears to far exceed the prevalence of documented ovulation[4,5,7,8,16].

Our primary objective was to prospectively investigate the relationship between cramps and ovulation in luteal phase length-documented cycles in women with known variability in ovulatory characteristics. Our secondary objective was to describe the prospective experiences of dysmenorrhea in healthy, non-smoking, normal-weight premenopausal women initially proven normally menstruating and ovulating.

We hypothesized that menstrual cramps would be similar in ovulatory and anovulatory cycles. We anticipated that 40–90% of this cohort would experience cramps as previously reported[1,2,8,17,18]. We also postulated, based on the literature[2,18-23], that cramps would decrease in intensity with increasing age and parity. We expected to see no association between physical activity patterns, menstrual cycle lengths and the experience of cramps[18,24-26].

Methods

These data were from Menstrual Cycle Diary© records collected prospectively during a primary published study conducted from 1985 to 1987 at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada[27,28]. That study recruited healthy, menstruating premenopausal women screened to have two consecutive normal length and normally ovulatory cycles (with a luteal phase length of ≥ 10 days). They were studied over one-year while recording experiences using the daily Menstrual Cycle Diary© (Diary), and ovulation and luteal phase lengths using Quantitative Basal Temperature© (QBT) analysis. Further details can be found here[27,28]. That study was approved by the Clinical Screening Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects at the University of British Columbia, (#C84-007). All women were volunteers who signed informed consent; they were not financially compensated for their participation. This research was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The original study was funded by the Canadian National Health Research Development Project (NHRDP) with supplemental (arm’s length donation) from the Dairy Bureau of Canada.

Participants

Healthy premenopausal women ages 21–41 years with clinically normal menstrual cycles were recruited from the community into a study with a primary objective to assess bone mineral density change[27]. The exclusion criteria were: use of hormonal contraceptives within 6 months, body mass index (BMI) < 18.5 or ≥ 25 kg/m2, a weight change of > 2.5 kg in the past year, smoking, shift work (that would disturb circadian rhythms and potentially invalidate basal temperature data), clinical or biochemical androgen excess, mental illness, alcohol abuse, eating disorders, and compulsive exercising[27]. Of the 113 women who signed informed consent, completed the baseline interviewer-administered questionnaire and passed screening blood tests, 81 had two consecutive normal length cycles (21–36 days) with luteal phase lengths of ≥ 10 days and were enrolled; 66 completed the entire study[27].

We included the 53 women from this cohort who submitted eight or more consecutive cycle-long Diary records (note: full Diary completion was voluntary) with sufficient QBT data for analysis. All participants were followed carefully, completed assessments at a university laboratory every 3 months and between appointments were contacted monthly by telephone[27].

Cramps assessment and the Cramp Score

The key variables were daily records of cramp occurrence, and if present, cramp intensity, reported on an ordinal score from 0 to 4 (0 = no cramps, 1 = minimal, 2 = moderate, 3 = moderately intense, 4 = extremely intense)[28]. A Cramp Score was calculated for each cycle as the mean duration of cramps per cycle (days) multiplied by (X) mean cramp intensity. Thus, we assessed three dysmenorrhea/cramp variables for each woman within each cycle: number of days of cramps/cycle, average cramp intensity/day of cramp experience, and Cramp Score.

Menstrual Cycle Diary and Quantitative Basal Temperature

Women were instructed to complete the Menstrual Cycle Diary[28] daily just before bedtime, including recording at the bottom of the Diary that day’s first morning (basal) temperature measurement. The Diary includes menstrual flow parameters, physical or emotional changes, and other everyday experiences[28].

Quantitative Basal Temperature© (QBT) was assessed by measuring oral temperature at awakening using a provided, low-reading mercury thermometer (Becton Dickinson, No. 4009) read to the nearest 0.05 °C. On the Diary form, participants also included comments on factors that might have affected their temperature reading, such as illness or late awakening. Ovulatory status was determined using the QBT least means squares algorithm that has been validated in blinded studies against both the serum LH peak and a three-fold follicular-to-luteal increase in urinary progesterone excretion[29,30]. Using this method, the largest and significant difference between the cycle’s two mean temperatures began on the QBT shift day that was, on average, 24–36 h after the serum LH surge[29]. The luteal phase length (LL) was determined as the number of days between the QBT temperature shift day and the day before onset of the next menstruation. Luteal phases were categorized as short luteal phase (SLL < 10 days) or normal luteal phase (≥ 10 days)[31]. Anovulatory cycles were those in which the QBT analysis showed no statistically significant temperature shift or a temperature increase of fewer than three days. Women also recorded daily aerobic exercise data, including miles run (calculated as minutes of running exercise by assuming all had the mean 10-min/mile pace) and minutes of non-running aerobic or less intense physical activity per day.

Statistical analysis

Demographic, anthropomorphic, menstrual cycle, reproductive health, and exercise variables were assessed for normal distributions and described as mean (95% confidence interval) or median (range) for all women across the Cramp Scores and ovulatory-status groups. We first assessed whether these variables and cramp parameters (cramp duration, cramp intensity, and Cramp Scores) differed between the 53 women with ≥ 8 cycles of data (median 13) versus the nine women with fewer recorded cycles.

We calculated the variability of cramp parameters among the 53 women in all cycles and within-woman. An overall distribution of cramp and LL variables was described using non-parametric statistics. The women were divided into two 50 percentile groups by the frequency distribution of their median Cramp Score (mild cramps group with Cramp Scores ≤ 3 and moderate to severe group with Cramp Scores > 3).

To be able to compute LL for all cycles, we considered anovulatory cycles to have a LL of 0.1 days. All cycles were of normal lengths and, based on mean, year-long LL were divided into two groups: “subclinical ovulatory disturbances” (SOD)[32] (a clinically normal cycle with a short luteal phase [SLL < 10 days] or one that was anovulatory), and normally ovulatory cycles with mean LL ≥ 10 days[31]. Short luteal phase and anovulatory cycles were grouped under SOD cycles given both cycles produce less progesterone compared to ovulatory cycles, and were shown to decrease bone density in previous prospective studies[27,33]. For dysmenorrhea comparisons between women, we similarly divided women into two groups by the mean LL of all cycles (a normally ovulatory group with an average LL ≥ 10 days, and a SOD group with an average LL < 10 days).

Statistically appropriate tests (ANOVA for normally distributed and Mann–Whitney U test for non-normally distributed variables) were performed for differences in these variables between the two cramp-classified groups (mild versus moderate-severe). We then analyzed within-woman differences in cramp parameters in the 49 women who had normal-length cycles with all three characteristics (normally ovulatory, short luteal phase, and anovulation) using the Wilcoxon Paired Signed Rank Test. Finally, also using Wilcoxon, we analyzed within-woman differences between normally ovulatory (LL ≥ 10 days) and anovulatory (LL = 0.1 days) cycles (excluding cycles with short luteal phases) in the 19 women who had both normally ovulatory and anovulatory cycles.

To assess other reported variables related to cramps, a multiple linear regression analysis was performed for all 53 participants, examining the relationship between cramp intensity (log transformed) and age, after first adjusting for months of pregnancy. SPSS software (IBM Corp. 2016, IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24.0) was used for all analyses.

Ethics

The original study was approved by the Clinical Screening Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects at the University of British Columbia, in April 1984 (#C84-007).

Results

Overall cramp parameters

A total of 720 menstrual cycles were analyzed across an average of one year in 53 healthy normally menstruating and ovulating women. Figure 1 shows the flow of participants from the original study’s completion to the cohort analyzed. There were no statistically significant differences in cramp duration, intensity nor Cramp Score, age, BMI, age at menarche, months of pregnancy, months of past combined hormonal contraceptive use, and average exercise parameters (data not shown) between the women whose data were included (n = 53) and those excluded (n = 9).

Figure 1

Flow of participants from the original prospective ovulation cohort study’s completion to the cohort for dysmenorrhea analyses. A total of 66 women met exclusion and inclusion criteria and 62 of these women completed the Menstrual Cycle Diary© and Quantitative Basal Temperature© analysis that is validated to document ovulation and luteal phase lengths. Of these, nine women had less than 8 consecutive cycles with both diary and temperature data. A final total of 53 women were included in the dysmenorrhea analysis cohort.

The 53 women in this analysis had a mean age of 34 years, a normal Body Mass Index (BMI) of 22, and an age at menarche of 11.5 years (Table 1). They had a mean number of 13.6 cycles/woman with an average cycle length of 28.1 (95% CI 27.5, 28.8) days. All cycles were of a normal 21–36 days’ length[34]. Ovulatory characteristics were more variable with 25% (N = 179) classified as ovulatory cycles with short luteal phases (SLL) and 6.2% as anovulatory cycles (N = 45).

Table 1

Demographic, anthropomorphic, menstrual cycle, reproductive health, and exercise characteristics of those in the prospective ovulation cohort by those with mild versus moderate-severe cramps using the Cramp Score.

Characteristic	n = 53	Cramp Score		P value
		Mild (≤ 3)	Moderate-severe (> 3)
		n = 25	n = 28
Mean and (95% confidence interval)
Age (years)	33.9 (32.4–35.4)	35.2 (33.2–37.2)	32.8 (30.4–35.1)	0.114
Height (cm)	162.5 (160.8–164.3)	161.5 (158.8–164.1)	163.4 (161.0–165.9)	0.281
Weight (kg)	58.1 (56.2–59.9)	57.2 (54.4–60.0)	58.9 (56.3–61.5)	0.372
Body Mass Index (BMI) (kg/m2)	22.0 (21.4–22.5)	21.8 (21.0–22.7)	22.1 (21.3–22.9)	0.692
Age at menarche (years)	11.5 (11.1–11.8)	11.2 (10.7–11.7)	11.7 (11.2–12.1)	0.138
Number of cycles	13.6 (12.8–14.4)	13.4 (12.4–14.5)	13.8 (12.6–15.0)	0.660
Cycle length (days)	28.1 (27.5–28.8)	28.3 (27.2–29.4)	28.0 (27.2–28.8)	0.617
Median and (range)
Luteal length (days)	10.4 (3.5–12.5)	9.9 (3.5–12.5)	10.8 (5.5–12.3)	0.378
Average duration of all exercise (mins/cycle)	429.6 (0.0–2426.7)	522.9 (0.0–2426.7)	423.9 (0.0–1221.0)	0.618

A frequency distribution of Cramp Scores for all 53 women is shown in Fig. 2. All had at least one day in which they recorded a cramp intensity > 0 during the year; women recorded cramps in 74.5% of all cycles. The median duration of cramps was 2.2 days per cycle (range 1.0–10.2 days) and the median cramp intensity per cycle was 1.5 (range 1–3.5). Table 1 documents that the 25 women with mild Cramp Scores did not differ in any other individual variable from the 28 women with moderate-severe Cramp Scores.

Figure 2

Frequency distribution of Cramp Scores. The cramp scores were divided into four arbitrary categories of: Cramp Score < 3, 3–5.99, 6–8.99, and 9 or greater. Twenty-four women had Cramp Scores less than 3, which we classified as Mild. The remaining twenty-nine women had Cramp Scores 3 or greater, which we classified as Moderate-Severe. Three women had Cramp Scores 9 or greater.

Table 2 summarizes the data in all 53 women divided into two groups based on mean luteal phase length (LL); the 28 women whose mean LL was ≥ 10 days were classified as normally ovulatory; the 25 women with a mean LL of < 10 days were considered to have SOD. Between these two groups, there were no other statistically significant differences in any of the demographic, anthropometric, menstrual cycle, or exercise characteristics nor in reproductive health data.

Table 2

Demographic, anthropomorphic, menstrual cycle, reproductive health, and exercise characteristics of all 53 women in the prospective ovulation cohort stratified by mean luteal phase length (LL) into ovulatory status groups.

Characteristic	n = 53	Ovulatory status (by average LL)		P value
		Normally ovulatory (LL ≥ 10 days)	Subclinical ovulatory disturbance (LL < 10 days)
		n = 28	n = 25
Mean and (95% confidence interval)
Age (years)	33.9 (32.4–35.4)	34.0 (31.9–36.1)	33.8 (31.5–36.2)	0.918
Height (cm)	162.5 (160.8–164.3)	163.0 (160.5–165.5)	162.0 (159.3–164.7)	0.584
Weight (kg)	58.1 (56.2–59.9)	57.8 (55.6–60.0)	58.4 (55.2–61.7)	0.746
Body Mass Index (BMI) (kg/m2)	22.0 (21.4–22.5)	21.8 (21.0–22.6)	22.1 (21.2–23.0)	0.582
Age at menarche (years)	11.5 (11.1–11.8)	11.5 (11.1–12.0)	11.4 (10.9–11.8)	0.590
Total cycle #	720	376	344	–
Cycle (mean #/woman)	13.6 (12.8–14.4)	13.4 (12.3–14.5)	13.8 (12.7–15.0)	0.600
Cycle length (days)	28.1 (27.5–28.8)	^28.5 (27.6–29.3)	^27.7 (26.7–28.8)	0.265
Median and (range)
Luteal length (days)	10.4 (3.5–12.5)	11.0 (10.2–12.5)	8.9 (3.5–9.9)	.000*
Average duration of all exercise (mins/cycle)	429.6 (0.0–2426.7)	420.5 (0.0–1221.0)	537.4 (0.0–2426.7)	.510

^Nonparametric analysis between the two groups showed that SOD cycles were shorter than normally ovulatory cycles.

*As expected, since this was fundamental to the stratification into two groups.

A significant value of P < 0.05 is in bold font.

Dysmenorrhea and ovulation

Table 3 shows cramp parameters for the 49 women (a total of 675 cycles) who had both normally ovulatory and SOD cycles. A Wilcoxon Paired Signed Rank Test within-woman of cramp parameters showed that the number of days of cramps and the Cramp Score did not differ. However, cramp intensity was significantly lower in normally ovulatory cycles (median [range] of 1.2 [0.0–2.3]) than in cycles with SOD (1.4 [0.0–2.8]), P = 0.023. Note that mean cycle lengths were also significantly shorter in SOD cycles at 27.1 (95%CI 26.7, 27.6) days than in normally ovulatory ones 28.5 (95%CI 28.2, 28.8) days (P < 0.001). However, as shown in Table 1, the Cramp Score did not differ by cycle length.

Table 3

Cramp parameters within-woman in 49 women in the prospective ovulation cohort who had normally ovulatory cycles versus those with subclinical ovulatory disturbances (mean luteal phase lengths [LL] less than 10 days).

Characteristic Median (range)	Normally Ovulatory cycles (LL ≥ 10 days)n = 449	Subclinical Ovulatory Disturbance cycles (LL < 10 days)n = 226	Mean positive ranks*	P value
Cramp duration (days/cycle)	2.0 (0.0–10.7)	2.0 (0.0–10.0)	25.91	0.543
Cramp intensity (0–4)	1.2 (0.0–2.3)	1.4 (0.0–2.8)	24.92	0.023
Cramp Score	2.5 (0.0–19.5)	2.8 (0.0–22.6)	25.16	0.147

A significant value with P < 0.05 is in bold font.

*Cramp parameters between normally ovulatory and ovulatory disturbed cycles were compared within-women using the Wilcoxon Paired Signed Rank Test in the 49 women in this cohort with both cycle types.

We also analyzed cramps within the 19 women who experienced both normally ovulatory and anovulatory cycles, after first excluding ovulatory cycles with SLL (Table 4). This within-woman analysis documented no differences in cramp duration, intensity, nor Cramp Score by ovulatory/anovulatory status. Menstrual cramps were reported in 70% of all 150 normally ovulatory cycles and in 67% of all 43 anovulatory cycles. Within-woman analysis showed no significant difference in the prevalence of cramps between these groups. In contrast to the previous ovulatory/SOD cycle comparison, mean cycle lengths did not significantly differ between normally ovulatory (28.4; 95%CI 27.9, 28.9 days) and anovulatory cycles (27.4: 95%CI 26.3, 28.5 days).

Table 4

Cramps within-woman in the 19 women within the prospective ovulation cohort who recorded both normally ovulatory and anovulatory cycles (with short luteal phase length [SLL of less than 10 days] cycle excluded).

Characteristic Median (range)	Normally Ovulatory cycles (LL ≥ 10 days)n = 150	Anovulatory cycles (LL = 0.1 days)n = 43	Mean positive ranks*	P value
Cramp duration (days)	1.8 (0.0–3.6)	1.5 (0.0–4.5)	9.55	0.395
Cramp intensity (0–4 scale)	1.2 (0.0–2.3)	1.0 (0.0–3.0)	9.68	0.642
Cramps Score	2.0 (0.0–6.4)	2.0 (0.0–12.5)	12.61	0.222

*Cramp parameters between normally ovulatory and anovulatory cycles were compared within-women using the Wilcoxon Paired Signed Rank Test in the 19 women in this cohort with both cycle types.

Dysmenorrhea and age, pregnancy, cycle lengths and physical activity

Table 1 data showed that cycle length was not related to a statistically significant difference in Cramp Score. In addition, minutes of running and other physical activities per cycle did not significantly differ within the two groups stratified by Cramp Score. In a multiple linear regression analysis of cramp intensity (log transformed) and relationships with age and months of pregnancy, we found that, for every one-year increase in age, cramp intensity decreased significantly (P = 0.027) (data not shown). This decrease accounted for 0.7% of the variance after adjusting for the (non-significant) effect of months of pregnancy (data not shown).

Discussion

These prospective observational data for 13.6 ± 2.8 cycles/woman in 53 healthy, regularly cycling and screened-to-be-normally ovulatory women documented cramp characteristics were similar between ovulatory and anovulatory cycles. In contrast to the current hypothesis that cycles without normal ovulation lack cramps[4], in within-woman analysis there was no difference in Cramp Scores in SOD cycles compared with normally ovulatory cycles. However, the SOD cycles showed significantly higher cramp intensity than normally ovulatory ones. In keeping with the literature, this study found that cramps improved with increasing age but that there was no association between cramps and cycle lengths, lifetime months of pregnancy nor daily records of physical activity[18,23,26].

The concept that cramps occur only in ovulatory cycles may arise from the common assumption that all regular, normal-length cycles are, a priori, ovulatory[35]. Evidence now suggests that subclinical ovulatory disturbances occur in over a third of normal-length, spontaneous menstrual cycles[28,32,33,36]. Our data documented that cramp prevalence, duration, intensity, and Cramp Score were similar in ovulatory and anovulatory cycles within-woman.

Two observational studies of adolescent/young adult women by López et al. (2010)[37] and Seidman et al. (2018)[38] also provided evidence that cramps occur in anovulatory cycles. The López et al. (2010)[37] study included 52 university students (mean age 19) in a cross-sectional survey. There was no difference in the proportion of anovulatory cycles (assessed by classical [non-quantitative] basal body temperature monitoring) in women who did and did not report cramps. The Seidman et al. (2018)[38] observational cohort study of 81 healthy women ages 16–24 years used serial measures of midcycle urinary luteinizing hormone peak to assess ovulation. They found no difference in menstrual cramp pain levels in ovulatory versus anovulatory cycles[38]. Our study further extends the findings in adolescent/young adult women to healthy premenopausal adult women.

There is previous evidence to suggest that ovulation and thus, high progesterone levels, do not fully explain the pathogenesis of menstrual cramps. Shorter cycles are associated with higher follicular phase estrogen levels plus higher integrated estrogen levels across the entire menstrual cycle[39]. Our analysis showed that cycle length was not associated with cramp duration, intensity, nor Cramp Score both between cycles and between women. It is possible that estradiol levels may partially explain the origin of dysmenorrhea independent of ovulation. In our data, serum estradiol levels in women with SOD did not differ from those in normally ovulatory women[27]. However, in the population-based Norwegian study of ovulation prevalence, estradiol levels were both significantly lower and higher in cycles without normal ovulation (based on cycle-timed progesterone levels below the ovulatory threshold of 9.54 nmol/L)[36]. A study by Eldering et al. in 1990 investigated in vitro the roles of estradiol and progesterone in the production of prostaglandins using endometrial samples from Rhesus monkeys. This study showed that increased estradiol levels, independent of progesterone, were associated with higher PGF2α levels[15], which are the known cause of menstrual cramps[14].

Our second major objective was to characterize menstrual cramps in healthy premenopausal women. All of the 53 women reported at least one occurrence of cramps during the year, which is comparable to existing prospective studies that report the prevalence of primary dysmenorrhea as 76–91% over 12 months[19,40]. We found decreasing cramp intensity with increasing age, consistent with the survey by Burnett et al. (2005)[2] in which the population prevalence of cramps declined from adolescence to adults of > 50 years. Our results show no significant association between months of pregnancy and menstrual cramps, although we did not collect data on parity (live births). This observation is consistent with some cross-sectional surveys[2,41] although several longitudinal and cross-sectional studies demonstrate a decrease in menstrual cramp intensity and prevalence with parity and further decreases with increasing numbers of children[18-23]. Reasons for less dysmenorrhea with increased parity may include less prostaglandin production, lower peak intrauterine pressure generation, or changes in pain perception or neurosensory innervation following delivery[23].

Our research showed no significant association between physical activity and cramps, which is consistent with the majority of observational studies[24,42]. However, some data has shown less dysmenorrhea in athletes and in women with higher physical activity levels[43]. Importantly, when physical activity was used as an intervention, menstrual cramps significantly decreased[24,44]. Our observational results add to existing knowledge that physical activity has an inconclusive association with cramps.

This study is limited in that it is a secondary analysis of data gathered for a different purpose. As such, we have no information about the clinical significance of cramps experienced by participants and could not rule out secondary dysmenorrhea (i.e. endometriosis). We also do not have data regarding use of therapies for dysmenorrhea. Due to the small number of anovulatory cycles (6%), we had insufficient statistical power for within-woman comparisons of cramps between anovulatory and normally ovulatory cycles. We partially overcame that problem by comparing within-woman cramp parameters in normally ovulatory versus SOD cycles. We also had insufficient measurements of hormonal data to directly investigate associations among serum estradiol or progesterone levels and cramp parameters.

Our study also evidences many strengths. Most existing studies on dysmenorrhea are retrospective and cross-sectional and cannot account for the wide variations in menstrual characteristics across cycles and between women[2,18,45-48]. Thus, our study provides a more accurate representation of cramp and ovulatory characteristics over time with a longitudinal, within-woman analysis. In addition, the prospective daily Diary nature of the study minimizes potential recall bias and allows for daily localization of peak symptoms within cycles. It is an advantage that participants were screened to be healthy, non-smoking, normally menstruating and ovulating without gynecological or endocrinological comorbidities. Since the initial primary purpose was not to study cramps, data were also not biased by help-seeking behavior. Furthermore, our sample represents a range of premenopausal ages adding valuable findings to already existing studies on gynecologically immature adolescent/young adult women.

Conclusion

Overall, this longitudinal observation of menstrual cramps in 53 healthy premenopausal women over 720 cycles (median 13/woman) showed that cramp intensity, duration, and prevalence were similar across cycles with normal ovulation and those with anovulation. These data provide evidence against the prevailing hypothesis that normal ovulation is necessary for the occurrence of dysmenorrhea. We demonstrated that cramps were highly prevalent, decreased with age, and were not clearly associated with physical activity in a cohort having a wide range of exercise patterns. Our study emphasized that cramps occurred regardless of ovulatory status, but further longitudinal menstrual cycle studies are needed. A new investigation would ideally provide hormonal confirmation of ovulation and luteal phase lengths and prostaglandin levels, include assessments of cramp therapy and allow detailed exploration of ovarian hormonal levels related to menstrual cramp pathophysiology.