Conception, as defined by the fertilisation of an ovum by a sperm, marks the beginning of human development. Currently, a biomarker of conception is not available; as conception occurs shortly after ovulation, the latter can be used as a proxy for the time of conception. In the absence of serial ultrasound examinations, ovulation cannot be readily visualised leaving researchers to rely on proxy measures of ovulation that are subject to error. The most commonly used proxy measures include: charting basal body temperature, monitoring cervical mucus, and measuring urinary metabolites of oestradiol and luteinising hormone. Establishing the timing of the ovulation and the fertile window has practical utility in that it will assist couples in appropriately timing intercourse to achieve or avoid pregnancy. Identifying the likely day of conception is clinically relevant because it has the potential to facilitate more accurate pregnancy dating, thereby reducing the iatrogenic risks associated with uncertain gestation. Using data from prospective studies of couples attempting to conceive, several researchers have developed models for estimating the day-specific probabilities of conception. Elucidating these will allow researchers to more accurately estimate the day of conception, thus spawning research initiatives that will expand our current limited knowledge about the effect of exposures at critical periconceptional windows. While basal body temperature charting and cervical mucus monitoring have been used with success in field-based studies for many years, recent advances in science and technology have made it possible for women to get instant feedback regarding their daily fertility status by monitoring urinary metabolites of reproductive hormones in the privacy of their own homes. Not only are innovations such as luteinising hormone test kits and digital fertility monitors likely to increase study compliance and participation rates, they provide valuable prospective data that can be used in epidemiological research. Although we have made great strides in estimating the timing and length of the fertile window, more work is needed to elucidate the day-specific probabilities of conception using proxy measures of ovulation that are inherently subject to error. Modelling approaches that incorporate the use of multiple markers of ovulation offer great promise to fill these important data gaps.
day-specific probabilities conception ovulation estimation, fertile window timing intercourse conception probability, basal body temperature cervical mucus ovulation detection, urinary hormone metabolites LH estradiol fertility monitoring, periconceptional exposure window epidemiological research, proxy measures ovulation estimation error modeling, digital fertility monitor prospective conception study, Lynch Buck Louis day specific conception probability review, pregnancy dating conception timing accuracy methods, multiple ovulation markers modeling fertile window
PMID 17061968 17061968 DOI 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2006.00765.x 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2006.00765.x
Cite this article
Lynch, C. D., Jackson, L. W., & Buck Louis, G. M. (2006). Estimation of the day-specific probabilities of conception: current state of the knowledge and the relevance for epidemiological research. Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 20 Suppl 1(s1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3016.2006.00765.x
Lynch CD, Jackson LW, Buck Louis GM. Estimation of the day-specific probabilities of conception: current state of the knowledge and the relevance for epidemiological research. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2006;20 Suppl 1(s1):3-12. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3016.2006.00765.x
Lynch, C. D., et al. "Estimation of the day-specific probabilities of conception: current state of the knowledge and the relevance for epidemiological research." Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, vol. 20 Suppl 1, no. s1, 2006, pp. 3-12.
Keywords
Biomarkers
Related articles
Fertility AwarenessEffectiveness for ConceptionMultiple Indicator ComparisonPreconception Danish
Open Access
Pedersen ES et al., 2024·Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol
The use of fertility indicators to predict ovulation has largely been studied for contraceptive purposes, while less so as fertility-promoting tools. To investigate the association between fertility indicators and fecundability in Danish women trying to conceive. Web-based preconception cohort study. We analysed data from 11,328 females aged 18-49 years trying to conceive without fertility treatment for ≤6 menstrual cycles, from the Danish SnartGravid.dk and SnartForældre.dk cohorts (2007-2023). Participants reported the use of fertility indicators (counting days since the last menstrual period, cervical fluid monitoring, urinary ovulation testing, feeling ovulation, using a smartphone fertility app and measuring basal body temperature [BBT]). Time to pregnancy was measured in menstrual cycles ascertained by self-reported pregnancy status. We estimated fecundability ratios (FR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using proportional probabilities regression models adjusted for age, socio-economic position, health indicators, reproductive history and gynaecological factors. Fertility indicators were used by 63.3% of participants at study entry. Counting days was the most common (46.9%), while measuring BBT was the least (3.0%). Other indicators ranged from 17.0% to 23.6%, with 69.7% using more than one indicator. Compared with non-use, use of any fertility indicator was associated with greater fecundability (adjusted FR 1.14, 95% CI 1.08, 1.19). Cervical fluid monitoring showed the strongest association (aFR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03, 2.07), followed by urinary ovulation testing (aFR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16, 1.58) and counting days (aFR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09, 1.29). Feeling ovulation and fertility apps were modestly associated with fecundability, while measuring BBT was not associated. Sensitivity analysis restricting to ≤2 cycles of attempt time and two cycles of follow-up showed an aFR for any indicator use of 1.21 (95% CI 1.13, 1.31). In this Danish preconception cohort, use of fertility indicators was associated with a higher fecundability, varying by type of indicator.
Schliep KC et al., 2022·Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol
Women with endometriosis may have an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Research has focused on infertility clinic populations limiting generalisability. Few studies report differences by endometriosis severity. We investigated the relationships between endometriosis diagnosis, staging and typology and pregnancy outcomes among an operative and population-based sample of women. Menstruating women ages 18-44 years enrolled in the ENDO Study (2007-2009), 316 gravid women undergoing laparoscopy/laparotomy at surgical centres in Utah and California; 76 gravid women from the surgical centres' geographic catchment areas. Pregnancy outcomes were ascertained by questionnaire and included all pregnancies prior to study enrolment. Endometriosis was diagnosed via surgical visualisation in the operative cohort and pelvic magnetic resonance imaging in the population cohort. Adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using generalised linear mixed models for pregnancy outcomes, adjusting for women's age at study enrolment and at pregnancy, surgical site, body mass index and lifestyle factors. Women in the operative cohort with visualised endometriosis (n = 109, 34%) had a lower prevalence of live births, aPR 0.94 (95% CI 0.85, 1.03) and a higher prevalence of miscarriages, aPR 1.48 (95% CI 1.23, 1.77) compared with women without endometriosis. The direction and magnitude of estimates were similar in the population cohort. Women with deep endometriosis were 2.98-fold more likely (95% CI 1.12, 7.95) to report a miscarriage compared with women without endometriosis after adjusting for women's age at study enrolment and at pregnancy, surgical site and body mass index. No differences were seen between endometriosis staging and pregnancy outcomes. While there was no difference in number of pregnancies among women with and without endometriosis in a population-based sample, pregnancy loss was more common among women with endometriosis, notably among those with deep endometriosis.
DeVilbiss EA et al., 2020·Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol
Attaining pregnancy is conditional upon a series of complex processes, including adequately timed intercourse, ovulation, fertilisation, and implantation. Anovulation is a first-line treatment target for couples with difficulty conceiving and is frequently examined in studies of fecundability. To identify whether sporadic anovulation is an important determinant of cumulative pregnancy rates and time to pregnancy among fertile women with regular menstrual cycles. We simulated cumulative pregnancy rates and time to pregnancy for 12 consecutive menstrual cycles among 100 000 women based on data-driven probabilities of implantation, fertilisation, ovulation, and intercourse occurring in the fertile window. We assumed anovulation probabilities of 1%, 8%, or 14.5% and intercourse averaging once per week, every other day, or daily. The model incorporated reductions in implantation and fertilisation rates for successive cycles of non-pregnancy. After 12 cycles, a reduction in the per cycle incidence of anovulation from 14.5% to 1% resulted in a 4.0% higher cumulative pregnancy rate (86.7% vs 90.7%) and similar time to pregnancy (1-cycle median difference). In contrast, increasing mean unscheduled sexual intercourse frequency from weekly to every other day was associated with a 5-cycle median reduction in time to pregnancy (weekly: 7 cycles; 2 cycles) and a 28.9% increase in the cumulative pregnancy rate (weekly: 59.9%, 88.8%; 91.6%). In presumed fertile women with regular menstrual cycles, routine investigation of anovulation may not be an informative outcome in studies of fecundability, and routine testing to ensure ovulation and treatment of anovulation are unlikely to be medically necessary. While biomarkers or cervical fluid may help time intercourse to the fertile window, time to pregnancy can also be improved through increasing the frequency of unscheduled intercourse. These findings need corroboration in large preconception time to pregnancy studies.
Najmabadi S et al., 2020·Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol
There is variability between women for days of menstrual bleeding, cycle lengths, follicular phase lengths, and luteal phase lengths, related to age and parity. To describe total cycle length; anovulatory cycles; follicular and luteal phase lengths; and days and intensity of menstrual and non-menstrual bleeding in women without known subfertility over the course of 1 year. 581 women (3,324 cycles) with no known subfertility (18-40 years of age) were followed for up to 1 year. Women recorded vaginal bleeding and mucus discharge daily. We used the peak day of cervical mucus as the estimated day of ovulation and the last day of the follicular phase. We used generalised linear mixed models stratified by age and parity to describe menstrual cycle parameters. The majority of women were <30 years of age (74.5%), non-Hispanic White (88.6%), and nulliparous (70.4%). The mean menses length was 6.2 (1.5) days, median 6; cycle length 30.3 (6.7) days, median 29; follicular phase length 18.5 (6.5) days, median 17; and luteal phase length 11.7 (2.8) days, median 12. Nulliparous women aged ≥30 years vs nulliparous women aged <30 had shorter cycles (29.2 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) 27.8, 30.7 vs 31.5 days, 95% CI 30.8, 32.2) and shorter follicular phases (17.6 days, 95% CI 16.2, 18.9 vs 19.6 days, 95% CI 18.9, 20.2). Among all women, within-woman differences between the longest and shortest menses length >3 days, total cycle length >7 days, follicular phase >7 days, and luteal phase >3 days were found in 11.6%, 43.0%, 41.7%, and 58.8% of women, respectively. Our findings confirm variability between women of menstrual cycle parameters related to age and parity, and also highlight within-woman variability in the follicular and luteal phases.