Rene Ecochard1, Olivia Duterque2, Rene Leiva3, Thomas Bouchard4, Pilar Vigil5. 1. Service de Biostatistique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France; Equipe Biostatistique-Santé, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Unité Mixte de Recherche 5558, Villeurbanne, France. Electronic address: rene.ecochard@chu-lyon.fr. 2. Service de Biostatistique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université de Lyon, Lyon, France; Université Lyon 1, Villeurbanne, France; Equipe Biostatistique-Santé, Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Unité Mixte de Recherche 5558, Villeurbanne, France. 3. C. T. Lamont Primary Health Care Research Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Department of Family Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Family Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 5. Reproductive Health Research Institute, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the sensitivity and specificity of the self-identified fertile window. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): A total of 107 women. INTERVENTION(S): Women recorded cervical mucus observation and basal body temperature daily while undergoing daily ovarian ultrasound. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The biological fertile window, defined as the 6 days up to and including the day of ovulation; and the 2-day ovulation window, defined as the day before and the day of ovulation. RESULT(S): The self-identification of the biological fertile window by the observation of any type of cervical mucus provides 100% sensitivity but poor specificity, yielding a clinical fertile window of 11 days. However, the identification of the biological fertile window by peak mucus (defined as clear, slippery, or stretchy mucus related to estrogen) yielded 96% sensitivity and improved specificity. The appearance of the peak mucus preceded the biological fertile window in less than 10% of the cycles. Likewise, this type of mucus identified the ovulation window with 88% sensitivity. CONCLUSION(S): These results suggest that, when perceived accurately, more accurate clinical self-detection of the fertile window can be obtained by identification of peak mucus. This may improve efforts to focus intercourse in the fertile phase for couples with fertility concerns. Crown
OBJECTIVE: To assess the sensitivity and specificity of the self-identified fertile window. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): A total of 107 women. INTERVENTION(S): Women recorded cervical mucus observation and basal body temperature daily while undergoing daily ovarian ultrasound. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The biological fertile window, defined as the 6 days up to and including the day of ovulation; and the 2-day ovulation window, defined as the day before and the day of ovulation. RESULT(S): The self-identification of the biological fertile window by the observation of any type of cervical mucus provides 100% sensitivity but poor specificity, yielding a clinical fertile window of 11 days. However, the identification of the biological fertile window by peak mucus (defined as clear, slippery, or stretchy mucus related to estrogen) yielded 96% sensitivity and improved specificity. The appearance of the peak mucus preceded the biological fertile window in less than 10% of the cycles. Likewise, this type of mucus identified the ovulation window with 88% sensitivity. CONCLUSION(S): These results suggest that, when perceived accurately, more accurate clinical self-detection of the fertile window can be obtained by identification of peak mucus. This may improve efforts to focus intercourse in the fertile phase for couples with fertility concerns. Crown
Authors: Joseph B Stanford; Sydney K Willis; Elizabeth E Hatch; Kenneth J Rothman; Lauren A Wise Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Christina A Porucznik; Kyley J Cox; Karen C Schliep; Diana G Wilkins; Joseph B Stanford Journal: Environ Health Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 5.984
Authors: Karin Hammarberg; Robert J Norman; Sarah Robertson; Robert McLachlan; Janet Michelmore; Louise Johnson Journal: Reprod Biomed Soc Online Date: 2017-07-08