PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9844847

Menopausal status: subjectively and objectively defined.

Abstract

This study aims to assess the relationship between self-rated and menstrually defined menopausal status, assesses criteria women use in perceiving their own menopausal status and compares symptom reporting and hormonal levels for self-rated and menstrually defined menopausal status. Women in the third year of the longitudinal phase of the Melbourne Women's Midlife Health Project (n = 332) were asked to assess their own menopausal status and the basis for this assessment. They were also specifically questioned on current menstrual cycle characteristics and levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), estradiol and inhibin were measured. For 67% of the women, the two definitions of menopausal status were in agreement. In women menstrually defined as premenopausal, self-rated menopausal status of peri- or postmenopausal appeared to be based on the occurrence of symptoms. In women menstrually defined as postmenopausal, persistence of hot flushes was taken to mean that 'the menopause was still in progress' despite absence of menses for more than 12 months. In women menstrually defined as perimenopausal yet who self-rated as premenopausal, FSH was lower (p < 0.01) and inhibin higher (p = 0.05) than women who self-rated as peri- or postmenopausal. Women's perceptions of the menopause are based on symptoms. Self-rated menopausal status appears to relate more closely to a women's endocrine status than definitions based on purely menstrual cycle characteristics.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C Garamszegi, L Dennerstein, E Dudley, J R Guthrie, M Ryan, H Burger. 1998. Menopausal status: subjectively and objectively defined.. https://doi.org/10.3109/01674829809025694

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Implementing emergency research requiring exception from informed consent, community consultation, and public disclosure.

Conducting emergency research in the out-of-hospital and emergency department setting is a challenge because of the inability of patients to provide informed consent in many situations. Federal guidelines allowing research under an exception from informed consent for emergency research have been established (21 CRF 50.24). Community consultation and public disclosure, 2 required components of obtaining this exception, are seen by many as a barrier to resuscitation research. This article will provide a brief overview of the history of the exception from informed consent for emergency research and summarize our methods recently used to successfully complete community consultation and public disclosure for a trial evaluating 2 devices used during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a large metropolitan area.

Attitude to Health↗