Abnormal uterine bleeding: getting our terminology straight.
OBJECTIVE
This review highlights the difficulties currently caused by the ill-defined and confused use of terminologies to describe symptoms, signs and causes of abnormal uterine bleeding. It also attempts to put usage of modern terminologies in an historical context with important lessons for current usage.


RESULTS
Confused terminology has led to difficulties in interpreting the results of many clinical trials of new therapies and surgical procedures for abnormal uterine bleeding, and in understanding some studies investigating underlying mechanisms of bleeding. The confusion is so great that a major international expert group has recommended abolition of such terms as 'menorrhagia', 'metrorrhagia' and 'dysfunctional uterine bleeding', and replacement with much simpler terms to specifically cover cycle regularity, frequency, duration and heaviness of bleeding episodes, and to acknowledge a significant change in pattern for individual women. New terminologies are required to describe certain underlying causes of abnormal uterine bleeding.


CONCLUSIONS
Such discussion should be an ongoing process aimed towards good international agreement, which will greatly simplify the interpretation of clinical trials and scientific studies of mechanisms and treatment responses, and will contribute to the process of education at all levels.
Fraser
Ian S
IS
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Queen Elizabeth 11 Research Institute foe Mothers and Infants, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. helena@med.usyd.edu.au
Critchley
Hilary Od
HO
Munro
Malcolm G
MG
D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007391:International Cooperation; D008595:Menorrhagia / Q000145:classification / Q000175:diagnosis; D008597:Menstrual Cycle / Q000502:physiology*; D008796:Metrorrhagia / Q000145:classification / Q000175:diagnosis; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D009626:Terminology as Topic; D014592:Uterine Hemorrhage / Q000145:classification* / Q000175:diagnosis