Vol 92, No 4 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-02-23

open access

Page views 2113
Article views/downloads 4187
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

PALM-COEIN classification system of FIGO vs the classic terminology in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding

Bekir Kahveci1, Mehmet Sukru Budak2, Serhat Ege3, Mehmet Obut3, Ihsan Baglı3, Süleyman Cemil Oğlak3, Mehmet Ali Vardar1
Pubmed: 33757147
Ginekol Pol 2021;92(4):257-261.


Objectives: To evaluate the FIGO’s novel classification system versus the classic terminology in patients with abnormal uterine bleeding. Material and methods: A retrospective study was carried out between August 2015 and September 2019 in the Health Sciences University Gazi Yaşargil Training and Research Hospital. The pathology reports of the patients were classified according to the PALM-COEIN method and were compared with classical terminology. The operated patients with fibroids reported in the pathology results were classified as subgroups of fibroids. Results: Evaluation was made of a total of 515 women with abnormal uterine bleeding. According to the classical terminology, 137 (26.6%) patients were defined with hypermenorrhea, 74 (14.4%) with menorrhagia, 57 (11.1%) with metrorrhagia, and 246 (47.8%) with menometrorrhagia. In the PALM-COEIN classification system, polyps were determined in 84 (16.3%) cases, adenomyosis in 228 [diffuse adenomyosis: 196 (38.1%), local adenomyosis: 32 (6.2%)], leiomyoma in 386 [submu-cous: 161 (31.1%), other types: 225 (43.9%)], and malignancy and hyperplasia in 47 (9.1%). Conclusions: The classical terminology for abnormal uterine bleeding is insufficient in terms of etiological pathologies in non-pregnant women of reproductive age. The widespread use of this novel system for the abnormal uterine bleeding classification will provide a more useful communication between physicians and researchers.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. ACOG committee opinion no. 557: Management of acute abnormal uterine bleeding in nonpregnant reproductive-aged women. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121(4): 891–896.
  2. Harlow SD, Campbell OMR. Epidemiology of menstrual disorders in developing countries: a systematic review. BJOG. 2004; 111(1): 6–16.
  3. Munro MG, Critchley H, Fraser IS. Research and clinical management for women with abnormal uterine bleeding in the reproductive years: More than PALM-COEIN. BJOG. 2017; 124(2): 185–189.
  4. Madhra M, Fraser IS, Munro MG, et al. A five-year international review process concerning terminologies, definitions, and related issues around abnormal uterine bleeding. Semin Reprod Med. 2011; 29(5): 377–382.
  5. Fraser IS, Critchley HOD, Munro MG, et al. Can we achieve international agreement on terminologies and definitions used to describe abnormalities of menstrual bleeding? Hum Reprod. 2007; 22(3): 635–643.
  6. Munro MG, Critchley HOD, Broder MS, et al. FIGO Working Group on Menstrual Disorders. FIGO classification system (PALM-COEIN) for causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in nongravid women of reproductive age. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011; 113(1): 3–13.
  7. Sharma JB, Yadav M. New ground breaking International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics's classification of abnormal uterine bleeding: Optimizing management of patients. J Midlife Health. 2013; 4(1): 42–45.
  8. Bahamondes L, Ali M. Recent advances in managing and understanding menstrual disorders. F1000Prime Rep. 2015; 7: 33.
  9. Mohammed N, Prejisha BA. study of correlation of etiological and histopathological findings in females undergoing hysterectomy for abnormal uterine bleeding—in accordance with PALM-COEIN classification. Paripex Indian J Res. 2014; 3(11): 76–77.
  10. Khrouf M, Terras K. Diagnosis and Management of Formerly Called "Dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding" According to PALM-COEIN FIGO Classification and the New Guidelines. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2014; 64(6): 388–393.
  11. Gordts S, Brosens JJ, Fusi L, et al. Uterine adenomyosis: a need for uniform terminology and consensus classification. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008; 17(2): 244–248.
  12. Munro MG, Critchley HOD, Fraser IS, et al. FIGO Menstrual Disorders Working Group. The FIGO classification of causes of abnormal uterine bleeding in the reproductive years. Fertil Steril. 2011; 95(7): 2204–8, 2208.e1.
  13. Qureshi FU, Yusuf AW. Distribution of causes of abnormal uterine bleeding using the new FIGO classification system. JPMA. 2013; 63(973).
  14. Nouri M, Tavakkolian A, Mousavi SR. Association of dysfunctional uterine bleeding with high body mass index and obesity as a main predisposing factor. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2014; 8(1): 1–2.
  15. Whitaker L, Critchley HOD. Abnormal uterine bleeding. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2016; 34: 54–65.
  16. Hassa H, Tekin B, Senses T, et al. Are the site, diameter, and number of endometrial polyps related with symptomatology? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194(3): 718–721.
  17. KARAKAYA BK, SERT Ü, İBANOĞLU M, et al. Evaluation of PALM-COEIN Classification with Abnormal Uterine Bleeding in Turkish Women. Türk Üreme Tıbbı ve Cerrahisi Dergisi. 2018; 2(3): 81–85.
  18. Downes E, Sikirica V, Gilabert-Estelles J, et al. The burden of uterine fibroids in five European countries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010; 152(1): 96–102.
  19. Malhotra N, Kumar P, Malhotra J, et al. Jeffcoate+ 39 +s Principles of Gynaecology. 2014.
  20. Munro MG. Classification of menstrual bleeding disorders. Rev Endocr Metab Disord. 2012; 13(4): 225–234.
  21. Mishra D, Sultan S. FIGO's PALM-COEIN Classification of Abnormal Uterine Bleeding: A Clinico-histopathological Correlation in Indian Setting. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2017; 67(2): 119–125.
  22. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK). Heavy menstrual bleeding (update). NICE Guideline. 2018, No. 88.