Skip to content

Systematic review, 2024

How common is PMDD?

PMDD affects 3.2% of women when diagnosed with confirmed criteria and 7.7% when using provisional diagnosis. This means PMDD is less common than some estimates suggest.

Strong study design 50,659 participants across 44 studies in multiple countries

What they did

Researchers searched databases for 44 studies measuring how many women have PMDD. They combined the results using statistical methods to get an overall estimate.

What they found

The overall prevalence was 3.2% with confirmed diagnosis and 7.7% with provisional diagnosis. There was high variation between studies. The continent where studies were done affected the results.

What it means for you

PMDD is relatively uncommon. Studies that don't fully confirm the diagnosis tend to report higher rates. A major limitation is that few studies used complete diagnostic criteria in regular community settings.

3.2%

prevalence with confirmed diagnosis

7.7%

prevalence with provisional diagnosis

50,659

total participants

About the study

Original title
The prevalence of premenstrual dysphoric disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Reilly TJ, Patel S, Unachukwu IC et al.
Journal
Journal of affective disorders
Year
2024
Study design
Systematic review
What was tested
None
Open access
Yes
Original abstract

Background: Premenstrual dysphoric disorder is characterised by symptoms confined to the premenstrual phase of the menstrual cycle. Confirmed diagnosis requires prospective monitoring of symptoms over two cycles, otherwise the diagnosis is provisional. We aimed to measure the point prevalence of premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Methods: We searched for studies of prevalence using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and PubMed. For each study, the total sample size and number of cases were extracted. The prevalence across studies was calculated using random effects meta-analysis with a generalised linear mixed model. Potential sources of heterogeneity were explored by meta-regression and subgroup analyses. Pre-registration was with PROSPERO (CRD42021249249). Results: 44 studies with 48 independent samples met inclusion criteria, consisting of 50,659 participants. The pooled prevalence was 3.2 % (95 % confidence intervals: 1.7 %-5.9 %) for confirmed and 7.7 % (95 % confidence intervals: 5.3 %-11.0 %) for provisional diagnosis. There was high heterogeneity across all studies (I 2 = 99 %). Sources of heterogeneity identified by meta-regression were continent of sample (p 2 = 26 %). Limitations: A small number of included studies used full DSM criteria in community settings. Conclusions: The point prevalence of premenstrual dysphoric disorder using confirmed diagnosis is lower compared with provisional diagnosis. Studies relying on provisional diagnosis are likely to produce artificially high prevalence rates.

Reproduced under CC-BY.

Topics