Mu, Q., & Fehring, R. J. (2023). A Comparison of Two Hormonal Fertility Monitoring Systems for Ovulation Detection: A Pilot Study. Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 59(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59020400
Mu Q, Fehring RJ. A Comparison of Two Hormonal Fertility Monitoring Systems for Ovulation Detection: A Pilot Study. Medicina (Kaunas). 2023;59(2). doi:10.3390/medicina59020400
Mu, Qiyan, and Richard Jerome Fehring. "A Comparison of Two Hormonal Fertility Monitoring Systems for Ovulation Detection: A Pilot Study." Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), vol. 59, no. 2, 2023.
For EndNote, Zotero or Mendeley:
Open access
No open license is recorded for this paper. Reuse terms are set by the publisher.
LH test strip app peak days correlated with Clearblue monitor peaks
In a 30-woman randomized pilot, the peak day from two low-cost LH strip systems correlated with the Clearblue Fertility Monitor's first peak day (r = 0.99). The strips estimated a significantly shorter fertile window. Women who already used the monitor rated it significantly higher.
Key Findings
The 30 women contributed 84 menstrual cycles. The LH surge was detected in 94% of cycles by the monitor, 82% by Premom LH strips and 95% by EAH LH strips.
The Premom peak day correlated with the monitor's first peak at r = 0.99 (p < 0.0001). The EAH peak correlated with it at r = 0.99 (p < 0.0001).
Estimated fertile window in the Premom group: 2.36 days (SD 0.88) by Premom and 8.19 days (SD 3.93) by the monitor.
Estimated fertile window in the EAH group: 2.53 days (SD 0.86) by EAH and 7.53 days (SD 3.60) by the monitor.
Satisfaction and ease-of-use scores favored the monitor: 51.29 against 43.07 for Premom, and 52.38 against 44.67 for EAH (both p < 0.02).
Interpretation
The authors note that because every participant already used the monitor, bias toward it was likely. They say women who want to avoid pregnancy with these strips would need to pair them with a defined algorithm such as the Marquette Method's. The findings support larger studies that validate the strip cutoff values and test them against additional measures of ovulation.
RRM Context
Restorative reproductive medicine teaches women to chart their cycles and know their own fertile days. A hormone monitor is one tool a chart can use. For avoiding pregnancy, the authors point to a defined algorithm such as the one in the Marquette Method.
Our editorial summary of this paper, not the article's abstract.
Abstract
Background and Objectives
Accuracy in detecting ovulation and estimating the fertile window in the menstrual cycle is essential for women to avoid or achieve pregnancy. There has been a rapid growth in fertility apps and home ovulation testing kits in recent years. Nevertheless, there lacks information on how well these apps perform in helping users understand their fertility in the menstrual cycle. This pilot study aimed to evaluate and compare the beginning, peak, and length of the fertile window as determined by a new luteinizing hormone (LH) fertility tracking app with the Clearblue Fertility Monitor (CBFM).
Materials and Methods
A total of 30 women were randomized into either a quantitative Premom or a qualitative Easy@Home (EAH) LH testing system. The results of the two testing systems were compared with the results from the CBFM over three menstrual cycles of use. Potential LH levels for estimating the beginning of the fertile window were calculated along with user acceptability and satisfaction.
Results
The estimates of peak fertility by the Premom and EAH LH testing were highly correlated with the CBFM peak results (R = 0.99, p < 0.001). The participants had higher satisfaction and ease-of-use ratings with the CBFM compared to the Premom and EAH LH testing systems. LH 95% confidence levels for estimating the beginning of the fertile window were provided for both the Premom and EAH LH testing results.
Conclusions
Our pilot study findings suggest that the Premom and EAH LH fertility testing app can accurately detect impending ovulation for women and are easy to use at home. However, successful utilization of these low-cost LH testing tools and apps for fertility self-monitoring and family planning needs further evaluation with a large and more diverse population.
04gr4te78 