Showing: 1 - 1 of 1 Articles

Faulty PMS Study

A scientific article that questioned the existence of PMS created a stir. The Atlantic Monthly published an article based on the article’s findings. These are my thoughts about the study:

Twenty six out of the 47 articles in Roman et al.’s meta-analysis had sample sizes of 50 or fewer, only three used a random sample, very few used a comparison group (i.e. non-cycling women such as those using the pill or other anovulatory agent), none included in their methodology an a priori quantification of what is a meaningful increase in symptoms of PMS, the list goes on. The authors themselves expressed their regret over how flawed or inadequate the studies were. The most reasonable conclusion for the authors to have drawn is not that the research to date fails to provide evidence of PMS and therefore it must be a cultural construct, but rather that the research to date has been of such poor quality that it is unable to answer the question of whether or not menstrual cycles significantly affect mood and quality of life. The adage “garbage in, garbage out” applies.