Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ British Journal of C...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Article . 2025 . Peer-reviewed
License: CC BY NC
Data sources: Crossref
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
PubMed Central
Other literature type . 2025
License: CC BY NC
Data sources: PubMed Central
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
versions View all 5 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

General practitioner consultation for postmenopausal bleeding after COVID‐19 vaccination—a self‐controlled cohort study

Authors: Rana Jajou; Eugène P. van Puijenbroek; Renee Veldkamp; Jetty A. Overbeek; Florence P. A. M. van Hunsel; Agnes C. Kant;

General practitioner consultation for postmenopausal bleeding after COVID‐19 vaccination—a self‐controlled cohort study

Abstract

AimsThe incidence of postmenopausal bleeding (PMB) has been increasing over the past years. Little is known about the risk of PMB after COVID‐19 vaccination. Our study aimed to investigate this based on routine general practitioner (GP) healthcare data from the Netherlands.MethodsA retrospective self‐controlled cohort study was performed, which included women aged ≥50 years who received at least 1 COVID‐19 vaccination in 2021 and were registered in the GP databases of Nivel (the Nivel Primary Care Database, Nivel‐PCD) or PHARMO by 1 January 2021. GP consultations for PMB in the exposed period (28 days after each COVID‐19 vaccination) were compared with the nonexposed period (all‐time outside the exposed period). Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated using Poisson regression, adjusting for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection during the study follow‐up period.ResultsA total of 692 760 COVID‐19 vaccinated women aged ≥50 years were included. No increased GP consultations for PMB was observed for all COVID‐19 vaccines together, as well as when stratifying the results by vaccine type (mRNA vs. vector) and vaccine brand (Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson). After the second Moderna dose an adjusted IRR of 1.47 (95% confidence interval: 0.93–2.32) was observed and after the third Pfizer/BioNTech dose an adjusted IRR of 1.33 (95% confidence interval: 0.92–1.93); however, these results were not statistically significant.ConclusionNo increased number of GP consultations for PMB in primary care was observed after COVID‐19 vaccination in general, nor for any of the COVID‐19 vaccine brands, vaccine doses or potential risk groups.

Keywords

Incidence, postmenopausal bleeding, COVID-19/prevention & control, COVID-19, Vaccination/adverse effects, Uterine Hemorrhage/epidemiology, Netherlands/epidemiology, Middle Aged, vaccination, Postmenopause, Cohort Studies, General Practitioners/statistics & numerical data, primary healthcare data, general practitioner, cohort study, Humans, Female, Referral and Consultation/statistics & numerical data, Original Article, Retrospective Studies, Aged, COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    2
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
2
Top 10%
Average
Average
Green
hybrid