Cargando…

Plausibility of Menstrual Cycle Apps Claiming to Support Conception

The interval of peak fertility during the menstrual cycle is of limited duration, and the day of ovulation varies, even in women with fairly regular cycles. Therefore, menstrual cycle apps identifying the “fertile window” for women trying to conceive must be quite precise. A deviation of a few days...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Freis, Alexander, Freundl-Schütt, Tanja, Wallwiener, Lisa-Maria, Baur, Sigfried, Strowitzki, Thomas, Freundl, Günter, Frank-Herrmann, Petra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5891577/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29666788
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00098
_version_ 1783313023141675008
author Freis, Alexander
Freundl-Schütt, Tanja
Wallwiener, Lisa-Maria
Baur, Sigfried
Strowitzki, Thomas
Freundl, Günter
Frank-Herrmann, Petra
author_facet Freis, Alexander
Freundl-Schütt, Tanja
Wallwiener, Lisa-Maria
Baur, Sigfried
Strowitzki, Thomas
Freundl, Günter
Frank-Herrmann, Petra
author_sort Freis, Alexander
collection PubMed
description The interval of peak fertility during the menstrual cycle is of limited duration, and the day of ovulation varies, even in women with fairly regular cycles. Therefore, menstrual cycle apps identifying the “fertile window” for women trying to conceive must be quite precise. A deviation of a few days may lead the couple to focus on less- or non-fertile days for sexual intercourse and thus may be worse than random intercourse. The aim of the present investigation was to develop a scoring system for rating available apps for determining the fertile window and secondarily pilot test 12 apps currently available in both German and English (consisting of 6 calendar-based apps: Clue Menstruations- und Zykluskalender, Flo Menstruationskalender, Maya-Mein Periodentracker, Menstruationskalender Pro, Period Tracker Deluxe, and WomanLog-Pro-Kalender; 2 calculothermal apps: Ovy and Natural Cycles; and 4 symptothermal apps: myNFP, Lady Cycle, Lily, and OvuView). The calendar-based apps were investigated by entering several series of cycles with varying lengths, whereas the symptom-based apps were examined by entering data of cycles with known temperature rise, cervical mucus pattern, and clinical ovulation. The main criteria for evaluating the cycle apps were as follows: (1) What methods/parameters were used to determine the fertile window? (2) What study results exist concerning that underlying method/parameters? (3) What study results exist concerning the app itself? (4) Was there a qualified counseling service? The calendar-based apps predicted the fertile days based on data of previous cycles. They obtained zero points in our scoring system, as they did not comply with any of the evaluated criteria. Calculothermal apps had similar deficits for predicting the most fertile days and produced suboptimal results (Ovy 3/30 points and Natural Cycles 2/30 points). The symptothermal apps determined the fertile days based on parameters of the current cycle: Lady Cycle scored 20/30 points, myNFP 20/30 points, Lily 19/30 points, and OvuView 11/30 points. We concluded that the available cycle apps vary according to their underlying scientific quality and clear rating criteria have been suggested. Three of the tested apps were judged to be eligible for further study. The scientific evaluation of cycle apps depends on good prospective studies undertaken by independent investigators who are free of commercial bias.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5891577
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58915772018-04-17 Plausibility of Menstrual Cycle Apps Claiming to Support Conception Freis, Alexander Freundl-Schütt, Tanja Wallwiener, Lisa-Maria Baur, Sigfried Strowitzki, Thomas Freundl, Günter Frank-Herrmann, Petra Front Public Health Public Health The interval of peak fertility during the menstrual cycle is of limited duration, and the day of ovulation varies, even in women with fairly regular cycles. Therefore, menstrual cycle apps identifying the “fertile window” for women trying to conceive must be quite precise. A deviation of a few days may lead the couple to focus on less- or non-fertile days for sexual intercourse and thus may be worse than random intercourse. The aim of the present investigation was to develop a scoring system for rating available apps for determining the fertile window and secondarily pilot test 12 apps currently available in both German and English (consisting of 6 calendar-based apps: Clue Menstruations- und Zykluskalender, Flo Menstruationskalender, Maya-Mein Periodentracker, Menstruationskalender Pro, Period Tracker Deluxe, and WomanLog-Pro-Kalender; 2 calculothermal apps: Ovy and Natural Cycles; and 4 symptothermal apps: myNFP, Lady Cycle, Lily, and OvuView). The calendar-based apps were investigated by entering several series of cycles with varying lengths, whereas the symptom-based apps were examined by entering data of cycles with known temperature rise, cervical mucus pattern, and clinical ovulation. The main criteria for evaluating the cycle apps were as follows: (1) What methods/parameters were used to determine the fertile window? (2) What study results exist concerning that underlying method/parameters? (3) What study results exist concerning the app itself? (4) Was there a qualified counseling service? The calendar-based apps predicted the fertile days based on data of previous cycles. They obtained zero points in our scoring system, as they did not comply with any of the evaluated criteria. Calculothermal apps had similar deficits for predicting the most fertile days and produced suboptimal results (Ovy 3/30 points and Natural Cycles 2/30 points). The symptothermal apps determined the fertile days based on parameters of the current cycle: Lady Cycle scored 20/30 points, myNFP 20/30 points, Lily 19/30 points, and OvuView 11/30 points. We concluded that the available cycle apps vary according to their underlying scientific quality and clear rating criteria have been suggested. Three of the tested apps were judged to be eligible for further study. The scientific evaluation of cycle apps depends on good prospective studies undertaken by independent investigators who are free of commercial bias. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-04-03 /pmc/articles/PMC5891577/ /pubmed/29666788 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00098 Text en Copyright © 2018 Freis, Freundl-Schütt, Wallwiener, Baur, Strowitzki, Freundl and Frank-Herrmann. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Public Health
Freis, Alexander
Freundl-Schütt, Tanja
Wallwiener, Lisa-Maria
Baur, Sigfried
Strowitzki, Thomas
Freundl, Günter
Frank-Herrmann, Petra
Plausibility of Menstrual Cycle Apps Claiming to Support Conception
title Plausibility of Menstrual Cycle Apps Claiming to Support Conception
title_full Plausibility of Menstrual Cycle Apps Claiming to Support Conception
title_fullStr Plausibility of Menstrual Cycle Apps Claiming to Support Conception
title_full_unstemmed Plausibility of Menstrual Cycle Apps Claiming to Support Conception
title_short Plausibility of Menstrual Cycle Apps Claiming to Support Conception
title_sort plausibility of menstrual cycle apps claiming to support conception
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5891577/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29666788
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00098
work_keys_str_mv AT freisalexander plausibilityofmenstrualcycleappsclaimingtosupportconception
AT freundlschutttanja plausibilityofmenstrualcycleappsclaimingtosupportconception
AT wallwienerlisamaria plausibilityofmenstrualcycleappsclaimingtosupportconception
AT baursigfried plausibilityofmenstrualcycleappsclaimingtosupportconception
AT strowitzkithomas plausibilityofmenstrualcycleappsclaimingtosupportconception
AT freundlgunter plausibilityofmenstrualcycleappsclaimingtosupportconception
AT frankherrmannpetra plausibilityofmenstrualcycleappsclaimingtosupportconception