OBJECTIVE: To determine the usefulness of salivary E2 and progesterone for noninvasive assessment of ovarian function. DESIGN: Prospective study of salivary hormone levels in women planning a pregnancy. SETTING: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, Illinois. PATIENT(S): Fourteen women aged 23-39 years with regular menstrual cycles who were planning a pregnancy. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Salivary estradiol and progesterone concentrations. RESULT(S): The sensitivity of the E2 assay is 2.0 pmol/L; the interassay coefficient of variation was 5.2% (mean value 17 pmol/L). Recovery of E2 added to saliva was 106%. The correlation with simultaneous serum samples was 0.71. Menstrual cycle patterns contained a preovulatory depression and a midcycle surge. By comparison with nonconception cycles, the luteal phases of conception cycles had significantly elevated salivary E2 within the first 5 days after ovulation. Salivary progesterone was significantly elevated but not until 10 days after ovulation. CONCLUSION(S): Salivary measurements of E2 and progesterone can be used as noninvasive methods for assessment of ovarian function. Salivary specimens can be collected at home and brought to the laboratory for analysis, obviating the need for frequent phlebotomy. The sensitivity and precision of the salivary E2 assay make it comparable with assays of serum E2 for assessing changes in hormone levels.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the usefulness of salivary E2 and progesterone for noninvasive assessment of ovarian function. DESIGN: Prospective study of salivary hormone levels in women planning a pregnancy. SETTING: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Northwestern University Medical School in Chicago, Illinois. PATIENT(S): Fourteen women aged 23-39 years with regular menstrual cycles who were planning a pregnancy. INTERVENTION(S): None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Salivary estradiol and progesterone concentrations. RESULT(S): The sensitivity of the E2 assay is 2.0 pmol/L; the interassay coefficient of variation was 5.2% (mean value 17 pmol/L). Recovery of E2 added to saliva was 106%. The correlation with simultaneous serum samples was 0.71. Menstrual cycle patterns contained a preovulatory depression and a midcycle surge. By comparison with nonconception cycles, the luteal phases of conception cycles had significantly elevated salivary E2 within the first 5 days after ovulation. Salivary progesterone was significantly elevated but not until 10 days after ovulation. CONCLUSION(S): Salivary measurements of E2 and progesterone can be used as noninvasive methods for assessment of ovarian function. Salivary specimens can be collected at home and brought to the laboratory for analysis, obviating the need for frequent phlebotomy. The sensitivity and precision of the salivary E2 assay make it comparable with assays of serum E2 for assessing changes in hormone levels.
Authors: Kristin I Stanford; Timothy D Mickleborough; Shahla Ray; Martin R Lindley; David M Koceja; Joel M Stager Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Paul Denny; Fred K Hagen; Markus Hardt; Lujian Liao; Weihong Yan; Martha Arellanno; Sara Bassilian; Gurrinder S Bedi; Pinmannee Boontheung; Daniel Cociorva; Claire M Delahunty; Trish Denny; Jason Dunsmore; Kym F Faull; Joyce Gilligan; Mireya Gonzalez-Begne; Frédéric Halgand; Steven C Hall; Xuemei Han; Bradley Henson; Johannes Hewel; Shen Hu; Sherry Jeffrey; Jiang Jiang; Joseph A Loo; Rachel R Ogorzalek Loo; Daniel Malamud; James E Melvin; Olga Miroshnychenko; Mahvash Navazesh; Richard Niles; Sung Kyu Park; Akraporn Prakobphol; Prasanna Ramachandran; Megan Richert; Sarah Robinson; Melissa Sondej; Puneet Souda; Mark A Sullivan; Jona Takashima; Shawn Than; Jianghua Wang; Julian P Whitelegge; H Ewa Witkowska; Lawrence Wolinsky; Yongming Xie; Tao Xu; Weixia Yu; Jimmy Ytterberg; David T Wong; John R Yates; Susan J Fisher Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2008-03-25 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Stephen J Ives; Mark Blegen; Mary A Coughlin; Jan Redmond; Tracey Matthews; Vincent Paolone Journal: Eur J Appl Physiol Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 3.078
Authors: Emily S Barrett; Chongshu Chen; Sally W Thurston; Line Småstuen Haug; Azemira Sabaredzovic; Frøydis Nyborg Fjeldheim; Hanne Frydenberg; Susan F Lipson; Peter T Ellison; Inger Thune Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: James R Slauterbeck; Stephen F Fuzie; Michael P Smith; Russell J Clark; K Xu; David W Starch; Daniel M Hardy Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Laura D Kubzansky; Wendy B Mendes; Allison Appleton; Jason Block; Gail K Adler Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-12-21 Impact factor: 3.295