4.7 Article

Menstrual cycle differences between women with type 1 diabetes and women without diabetes

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 1016-1021

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.26.4.1016

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK44590] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To evaluate menstrual cycle histories among women with type 1 diabetes, their sisters, and unrelated control subjects without diabetes across all reproductive ages. Research Design and Methods-Menstrual and reproductive histories were obtained by questionnaire from 143 women with type 1 diabetes, 186 sisters without diabetes, and 158 unrelated control subjects without diabetes participating in the Familial Autoimmune and Diabetes study. Results-Women with type 1 diabetes had more menstrual problems (long cycles, long menstruation, and heavy menstruation) before age 30 years than sisters and control subjects. These differences were all statistically significant, except for heavy menstruation at age <20 years. No differences were observed after age 30 years. Women with type 1 diabetes experienced later menarche, earlier natural menopause, fewer pregnancies, and more stillbirths than women without diabetes. Multiple regression analyses revealed that type 1 diabetes caused an approximate twofold increased risk of any menstrual problem before age 30 years. These were primarily related to long cycles and long menstruation in women aged <20 and 20-29 years, as well as with heavy menstruation from 20 to 29 years. Oral contraceptives were protective for any menstrual problem and heavy menstruation from 30 to 39 years of age. With history of pregnancy from 20 to 40 years of age, any menstrual problem and long menstruation were more likely. Conclusions-The results suggest that type 1 diabetes is an independent risk factor for menstrual disturbances in young adults. Future studies may determine whether addressing menstrual disturbances improves quality of life and health for these women.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据