Lyzwinski, L., Elgendi, M., & Menon, C. (2024). Innovative Approaches to Menstruation and Fertility Tracking Using Wearable Reproductive Health Technology: Systematic Review. Journal of medical Internet research. https://doi.org/10.2196/45139
Lyzwinski L, Elgendi M, Menon C. Innovative Approaches to Menstruation and Fertility Tracking Using Wearable Reproductive Health Technology: Systematic Review. Journal of medical Internet research. 2024. doi:10.2196/45139
Lyzwinski, Lynnette, et al. "Innovative Approaches to Menstruation and Fertility Tracking Using Wearable Reproductive Health Technology: Systematic Review." Journal of medical Internet research, 2024.
Most wearable devices detected cycle phases and the fertile window
A systematic review of 13 wearable device studies found that most devices detected the fertile window and cycle phases. The authors call the results promising. Devices tracked temperature, pulse and breathing, and only one study evaluated breathing rate across the cycle. Reported sensitivity ranged from 62% to 92%.
Key Findings
The reviewers searched for studies published from July 1, 2012, to July 1, 2022, and included 13.
Fertility sensitivity was lowest at 62%, for a wrist-worn sensor, and highest at 92%, for an ear device and an abdominal sensor used at night.
In a 63-participant study, the Ava bracelet reached a sensitivity of 62% versus 23% for basal body temperature checks.
Among 22 participants, the Oura Ring detected ovulation with 83% sensitivity.
The OvulaRing intravaginal sensor reached an accuracy of 88% for the fertile period, from 3 days before ovulation to 3 days after, in 158 participants.
Interpretation
The 13 device-validation studies each enrolled 22 to 193 participants, and most confirmed ovulation with urine hormone strips. Two studies found lower accuracy in women with irregular cycles. The authors note that sperm survive about 5 days, so a device that flags only 3 days before ovulation misses part of the window. They call for comparative prospective efficacy studies and randomized controlled trials.
RRM Context
Wearables read body signals that charting also records, such as the temperature rise after ovulation. RRM is cycle-charting-informed. The authors say wearables appear to be a valuable adjunct to current fertility tracking. They also flag data privacy as an open issue.
Our editorial summary of this paper, not the article's abstract.
Abstract
Background
Emerging digital health technology has moved into the reproductive health market for female individuals. In the past, mobile health apps have been used to monitor the menstrual cycle using manual entry. New technological trends involve the use of wearable devices to track fertility by assessing physiological changes such as temperature, heart rate, and respiratory rate.
Objective
The primary aims of this study are to review the types of wearables that have been developed and evaluated for menstrual cycle tracking and to examine whether they may detect changes in the menstrual cycle in female individuals. Another aim is to review whether these devices are effective for tracking various stages in the menstrual cycle including ovulation and menstruation. Finally, the secondary aim is to assess whether the studies have validated their findings by reporting accuracy and sensitivity.
Methods
A review of PubMed or MEDLINE was undertaken to evaluate wearable devices for their effectiveness in predicting fertility and differentiating between the different stages of the menstrual cycle.
Results
Fertility cycle-tracking wearables include devices that can be worn on the wrists, on the fingers, intravaginally, and inside the ear. Wearable devices hold promise for predicting different stages of the menstrual cycle including the fertile window and may be used by female individuals as part of their reproductive health. Most devices had high accuracy for detecting fertility and were able to differentiate between the luteal phase (early and late), fertile window, and menstruation by assessing changes in heart rate, heart rate variability, temperature, and respiratory rate.
Conclusions
More research is needed to evaluate consumer perspectives on reproductive technology for monitoring fertility, and ethical issues around the privacy of digital data need to be addressed. Additionally, there is also a need for more studies to validate and confirm this research, given its scarcity, especially in relation to changes in respiratory rate as a proxy for reproductive cycle staging.
