Skip to content

Review, 1993

Is the PMS diagnosis scientifically valid and clinically useful?

The authors argue the traditional PMS diagnosis is flawed because there is no agreed definition, many women seeking help do not fit diagnostic criteria, and there is no consensus on treatment. They propose a three-factor model instead.

Moderate study design Review article on women seeking help for menstrual-related problems

What they did

Critical review of the PMS concept, diagnostic definitions, proposed treatments, and theories about causes. The authors examined the relationship between premenstrual mood changes and major depression.

What they found

There is no consensus definition of PMS, so many women seeking help are excluded from diagnosis. There is no agreement on how to treat these problems. Premenstrual mood changes resemble major depression but are shorter in duration and repeat cyclically. The authors propose a three-factor model instead of the traditional PMS concept.

What it means for you

The traditional PMS diagnosis may not capture the real experiences of women with menstrual-related symptoms. Understanding these problems may help explain why depression is more common in reproductive-age women than men. The field needs a new way of thinking about these problems.

Majority

of women excluded from diagnosis

No agreement

on definition or treatment

3-factor model

proposed instead of traditional PMS

About the study

Original title
The premenstrual syndrome--a reappraisal of the concept and the evidence
Authors
Bancroft J
Journal
Psychological medicine
Year
1993
Study design
Review
What was tested
None (review article)

Topics