Systematic review, 2022
What makes some PMS studies more reliable than others?
Most PMS studies have quality problems, but studies with fewer authors and lower-profile journals tend to be better designed. We still need more rigorous research on PMS treatments.
What they did
Systematic review of 1,668 non-randomized studies from 2010 to 2021, narrowed to 38 that met inclusion criteria. They used the ROBINS-1 tool to assess how much bias each study had.
What they found
31.6% of studies had low or moderate risk of bias, while 68.4% had serious or critical risk. Studies with fewer authors and lower impact factor journals showed better quality.
What it means for you
Most PMS intervention studies do not meet high quality standards. This review examined research quality itself, not whether treatments work, so it doesn't answer questions about what helps PMS.
31.6%
Studies with low or moderate bias
68.4%
Studies with serious or critical bias
38
Studies reviewed
About the study
- Original title
- Risk of Bias Assessment in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions for Premenstrual Syndrome: A Systematic Review
- Authors
- Tehfe H, Chow R, Li S et al.
- Journal
- Journal of family & reproductive health
- Year
- 2022
- Study design
- Systematic review
- What was tested
- None. This assessed research quality, not tested a treatment.
- Open access
- Yes
- Read the paper
- doi.org/10.18502/jfrh.v16i2.9476
Topics
Related studies
Systematic review, 2026
What is it like for women to live with PMS or PMDD?
Systematic review, 2025
Is there a link between stress, trauma, and premenstrual symptoms?
Cohort study, 2025
Is there a link between premenstrual disorders and autoimmune disease?
Cohort study, 2024
Do women with severe premenstrual disorders have higher risk of relationship breakup?
Cohort study, 2024
Is there a link between sleep and menstrual problems in teenage girls?
Randomised trial, 2023
Does taking sertraline when PMDD symptoms start improve how well women function?