Cargando…

Comparison between menstrual cups: first step to categorization and improved safety

OBJECTIVES: Menstrual cups come in a range of shapes, sizes, and firmnesses, but unlike tampons are not categorized in any way. With these factors having an impact on product leaks and comfort, as well as being linked to illness and injury, women need the same level of transparency when purchasing a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Manley, Hannah, Hunt, John A, Santos, Lívia, Breedon, Philip
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8606723/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34798792
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17455065211058553
_version_ 1784602395566669824
author Manley, Hannah
Hunt, John A
Santos, Lívia
Breedon, Philip
author_facet Manley, Hannah
Hunt, John A
Santos, Lívia
Breedon, Philip
author_sort Manley, Hannah
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Menstrual cups come in a range of shapes, sizes, and firmnesses, but unlike tampons are not categorized in any way. With these factors having an impact on product leaks and comfort, as well as being linked to illness and injury, women need the same level of transparency when purchasing a menstrual cup. The comparison of physical and mechanical properties of menstrual cups will be the first step to achieve this. METHODS: In October 2020, 14 popular and highly rated menstrual cups underwent quantitative comparison in laboratory settings (the United Kingdom), and they were compared in terms of their dimensions, volume, and compressive strength (firmness) using the Instron Universal Testing System. The overall designs were compared including shape, material, and features. RESULTS: Although all the products in this comparison were marketed to women below 30 years of age having never given birth, total volume varied from 18.88 mL to 38.14 mL, and compressive load to compress the menstrual cup 50% (±0.5%) maximum diameter varied from 3.39 N to 13.92 N. CONCLUSIONS: Women are not sufficiently informed when choosing a menstrual cup. With no correlation between menstrual cup size, shape, and its volume, or material, shape, and its firmness, consumers cannot estimate which menstrual cup might be most suitable, and incorrect choice could cause injury. Transparency is needed across menstrual cup brands. With this and further regulation, women will make an informed decision to choose the correct menstrual cup and minimize injury. This work recommends firmness categories, ranging from ‘very soft’ to ‘very firm’ as a first step.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8606723
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86067232021-11-23 Comparison between menstrual cups: first step to categorization and improved safety Manley, Hannah Hunt, John A Santos, Lívia Breedon, Philip Womens Health (Lond) Original Research Article OBJECTIVES: Menstrual cups come in a range of shapes, sizes, and firmnesses, but unlike tampons are not categorized in any way. With these factors having an impact on product leaks and comfort, as well as being linked to illness and injury, women need the same level of transparency when purchasing a menstrual cup. The comparison of physical and mechanical properties of menstrual cups will be the first step to achieve this. METHODS: In October 2020, 14 popular and highly rated menstrual cups underwent quantitative comparison in laboratory settings (the United Kingdom), and they were compared in terms of their dimensions, volume, and compressive strength (firmness) using the Instron Universal Testing System. The overall designs were compared including shape, material, and features. RESULTS: Although all the products in this comparison were marketed to women below 30 years of age having never given birth, total volume varied from 18.88 mL to 38.14 mL, and compressive load to compress the menstrual cup 50% (±0.5%) maximum diameter varied from 3.39 N to 13.92 N. CONCLUSIONS: Women are not sufficiently informed when choosing a menstrual cup. With no correlation between menstrual cup size, shape, and its volume, or material, shape, and its firmness, consumers cannot estimate which menstrual cup might be most suitable, and incorrect choice could cause injury. Transparency is needed across menstrual cup brands. With this and further regulation, women will make an informed decision to choose the correct menstrual cup and minimize injury. This work recommends firmness categories, ranging from ‘very soft’ to ‘very firm’ as a first step. SAGE Publications 2021-11-19 /pmc/articles/PMC8606723/ /pubmed/34798792 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17455065211058553 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Manley, Hannah
Hunt, John A
Santos, Lívia
Breedon, Philip
Comparison between menstrual cups: first step to categorization and improved safety
title Comparison between menstrual cups: first step to categorization and improved safety
title_full Comparison between menstrual cups: first step to categorization and improved safety
title_fullStr Comparison between menstrual cups: first step to categorization and improved safety
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between menstrual cups: first step to categorization and improved safety
title_short Comparison between menstrual cups: first step to categorization and improved safety
title_sort comparison between menstrual cups: first step to categorization and improved safety
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8606723/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34798792
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/17455065211058553
work_keys_str_mv AT manleyhannah comparisonbetweenmenstrualcupsfirststeptocategorizationandimprovedsafety
AT huntjohna comparisonbetweenmenstrualcupsfirststeptocategorizationandimprovedsafety
AT santoslivia comparisonbetweenmenstrualcupsfirststeptocategorizationandimprovedsafety
AT breedonphilip comparisonbetweenmenstrualcupsfirststeptocategorizationandimprovedsafety