Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Systematic review and meta-analysis shows high prevalence of primary dysmenorrhea in Sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting key risk factors.
Primary dysmenorrhea, painful menstruation without underlying pelvic pathology, is a prevalent gynecological issue affecting adolescents and young women. Despite its high burden in Sub-Saharan Africa, regional estimates of prevalence and associated factors remain limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to synthesize evidence on the prevalence and determinants of primary dysmenorrhea among women in Sub-Saharan Africa. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, HINARI, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and university repositories was conducted for studies published between 2008 and 2025. Cross-sectional studies reporting prevalence and/or associated factors of primary dysmenorrhea among SSA women were included. Data extraction and quality appraisal followed the Joanna Briggs Institute tools. Pooled prevalence and associations were estimated using random- or fixed-effects models in STATA 17, with heterogeneity assessed using I², Cochrane Q-test, and publication bias assessed using funnel plots, and Egger’s test. Sixty-five studies with 28,813 participants from 12 Sub-Saharan African countries were analyzed. The pooled prevalence of primary dysmenorrhea was 73.49% (95% CI: 70.95–76.03). Significant predictors included family history of dysmenorrhea (OR = 5.20; 95% CI: 3.28–7.12), irregular menstrual cycles (OR = 2.57; 95% CI: 1.67–3.48), and short cycle length (< 21 days; OR = 3.31; 95% CI: 1.88–5.83), whereas sexual intercourse was associated with lower odds (OR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.11–0.68). Subgroup analyses indicated variation across countries, and sensitivity analyses confirmed robustness. Primary dysmenorrhea affects nearly three-quarters of women in Sub-Saharan Africa and is influenced by family history of dysmenorrhea, irregular menstrual cycles, short cycle length, and sexual intercourse.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gindaba et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: