Fertility Awareness Effectiveness

The Accuracy of Wrist Skin Temperature in Detecting Ovulation Compared to Basal Body Temperature: Prospective Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy Study

Zhu TY, Rothenbühler M, Hamvas G, Hofmann A, Welter J, Kahr M, Kimmich N, Shilaih M, Leeners B

Published June 8, 2021 Journal of medical Internet research, 23(6), e20710
DOI 10.2196/20710 PMID 34100763 PMC PMC8238491

RRM Academy Synopsis

Wrist skin temperature was more sensitive than BBT for ovulation

In a Swiss diagnostic accuracy study of 57 healthy women, wrist skin temperature worn overnight showed a temperature shift in about 62 of 100 ovulatory cycles. Basal body temperature (BBT), taken by mouth on waking, did so in about 23 of 100. Home LH tests served as the check.

Study at a glance, diagnostic accuracy study: Wrist skin temperature was more sensitive than BBT for ovulation
Study at a glance, diagnostic accuracy study of 57 healthy women: Wrist skin temperature was more sensitive than BBT for ovulation. Source: Zhu TY et al., 2021, PMID 34100763.

Key Findings

  • Among 170 ovulatory cycles, 106 (62.4%) showed at least one temperature shift on wrist skin temperature, against 39 (22.9%) on BBT (P<.001).
  • Sensitivity was 0.62 (95% CI 0.55-0.70) for wrist skin temperature and 0.23 (0.17-0.30) for BBT. Specificity was 0.26 (0.10-0.48) and 0.70 (0.47-0.87).
  • Among 23 cycles with no LH surge, 17 (74%) showed a wrist temperature shift and 7 (30%) showed a BBT shift (P=.004).
  • Ovulation had occurred in 86.2% of cycles with a wrist temperature shift and 84.8% of cycles with a BBT shift.
  • Both temperatures rose after ovulation, and the wrist rise was larger: 0.50 °C against 0.20 °C.

Interpretation

This study followed 57 healthy women for 170 ovulatory cycles. The team measured wrist skin temperature overnight and basal body temperature by mouth, then checked both against home LH tests. Wrist temperature caught a shift in far more cycles than BBT did. The rise after ovulation was more than double the size of the BBT rise. The authors advise against relying on either temperature alone to avoid pregnancy. The findings support larger studies of wrist temperature monitoring as an ovulation sign.

RRM Context

Restorative reproductive medicine is built on cycle charting, so the reliability of each ovulation sign matters. A temperature shift and an LH surge are both indirect signs of the same event.

Abstract

Background

As a daily point measurement, basal body temperature (BBT) might not be able to capture the temperature shift in the menstrual cycle because a single temperature measurement is present on the sliding scale of the circadian rhythm. Wrist skin temperature measured continuously during sleep has the potential to overcome this limitation.

Objective

This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of these two temperatures for detecting ovulation and to investigate the correlation and agreement between these two temperatures in describing thermal changes in menstrual cycles.

Methods

This prospective study included 193 cycles (170 ovulatory and 23 anovulatory) collected from 57 healthy women. Participants wore a wearable device (Ava Fertility Tracker bracelet 2.0) that continuously measured the wrist skin temperature during sleep. Daily BBT was measured orally and immediately upon waking up using a computerized fertility tracker with a digital thermometer (Lady-Comp). An at-home luteinizing hormone test was used as the reference standard for ovulation. The diagnostic accuracy of using at least one temperature shift detected by the two temperatures in detecting ovulation was evaluated. For ovulatory cycles, repeated measures correlation was used to examine the correlation between the two temperatures, and mixed effect models were used to determine the agreement between the two temperature curves at different menstrual phases.

Results

Wrist skin temperature was more sensitive than BBT (sensitivity 0.62 vs 0.23; P<.001) and had a higher true-positive rate (54.9% vs 20.2%) for detecting ovulation; however, it also had a higher false-positive rate (8.8% vs 3.6%), resulting in lower specificity (0.26 vs 0.70; P=.002). The probability that ovulation occurred when at least one temperature shift was detected was 86.2% for wrist skin temperature and 84.8% for BBT. Both temperatures had low negative predictive values (8.8% for wrist skin temperature and 10.9% for BBT). Significant positive correlation between the two temperatures was only found in the follicular phase (rmcorr correlation coefficient=0.294; P=.001). Both temperatures increased during the postovulatory phase with a greater increase in the wrist skin temperature (range of increase: 0.50 °C vs 0.20 °C). During the menstrual phase, the wrist skin temperature exhibited a greater and more rapid decrease (from 36.13 °C to 35.80 °C) than BBT (from 36.31 °C to 36.27 °C). During the preovulatory phase, there were minimal changes in both temperatures and small variations in the estimated daily difference between the two temperatures, indicating an agreement between the two curves.

Conclusions

For women interested in maximizing the chances of pregnancy, wrist skin temperature continuously measured during sleep is more sensitive than BBT for detecting ovulation. The difference in the diagnostic accuracy of these methods was likely attributed to the greater temperature increase in the postovulatory phase and greater temperature decrease during the menstrual phase for the wrist skin temperatures.

Read the guide

  • Fertility Awareness Methods Compared

    Clinician-reviewed comparison of fertility awareness-based methods (Billings, Creighton, Sensiplan, Marquette, Standard Days, apps). Every effectiveness figure cited and labeled by metric.

    30 min read

Topics

By this author

Related research

Fertility Awareness › Effectiveness › Comparative Effectiveness · Menstrual Cycle › Cycle Biomarkers › Basal Body Temperature · Research Methods › Study Design › Cohort Studies
Tracy Y Zhu, Martina Rothenbühler, Györgyi Hamvas, Anja Hofmann, JoEllen Welter, Maike Kahr, Nina Kimmich, Mohaned Shilaih, Brigitte Leeners
T Zhu, M Rothenbühler, G Hamvas, A Hofmann, J Welter, M Kahr, N Kimmich, M Shilaih, B Leeners
PMID 34100763 34100763 DOI 10.2196/20710 10.2196/20710 Zhu et al. 2021, Zhu 2021