Literature DB >> 34100763

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

Tracy Y Zhu1, Martina Rothenbühler2, Györgyi Hamvas1, Anja Hofmann1, JoEllen Welter1, Maike Kahr1, Nina Kimmich3, Mohaned Shilaih2, Brigitte Leeners1,4.   

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. ©Tracy Y Zhu, Martina Rothenbühler, Györgyi Hamvas, Anja Hofmann, JoEllen Welter, Maike Kahr, Nina Kimmich, Mohaned Shilaih, Brigitte Leeners. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 08.06.2021.

Entities:  

Keywords:  BBT; basal body temperature; diagnostic accuracy; fertility; menstruation; mobile phone; oral temperature; ovulation; sensor; thermometer; wearable; wrist skin temperature

Year:  2021        PMID: 34100763     DOI: 10.2196/20710

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Internet Res        ISSN: 1438-8871            Impact factor:   5.428


  6 in total

Review 1.  The performance of wearable sensors in the detection of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review.

Authors:  Marianna Mitratza; Brianna Mae Goodale; Aizhan Shagadatova; Vladimir Kovacevic; Janneke van de Wijgert; Timo B Brakenhoff; Richard Dobson; Billy Franks; Duco Veen; Amos A Folarin; Pieter Stolk; Diederick E Grobbee; Maureen Cronin; George S Downward
Journal:  Lancet Digit Health       Date:  2022-05

Review 2.  Infrared Thermography in Wound Care, Surgery, and Sports Medicine: A Review.

Authors:  Jose L Ramirez-GarciaLuna; Robert Bartlett; Jesus E Arriaga-Caballero; Robert D J Fraser; Gennadi Saiko
Journal:  Front Physiol       Date:  2022-03-03       Impact factor: 4.566

3.  Reliability of Non-Contact Infrared Thermometers for Fever Screening Under COVID-19.

Authors:  Fan Lai; Xin Li; Qi Wang; Yingjuan Luo; Xin Wang; Xiuhua Huang; Jiajia Zhang; Jieru Peng; Qin Wang; Li Fan; Wen Li; Junrong Huo; Tianjiao Liu; Yalan Li; Yonghong Lin; Xiao Yang
Journal:  Risk Manag Healthc Policy       Date:  2022-03-10

4.  Novel Technique for Confirmation of the Day of Ovulation and Prediction of Ovulation in Subsequent Cycles Using a Skin-Worn Sensor in a Population With Ovulatory Dysfunction: A Side-by-Side Comparison With Existing Basal Body Temperature Algorithm and Vaginal Core Body Temperature Algorithm.

Authors:  Hurst B S; Davies K; Milnes R C; Knowles T G; Pirrie A
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-03-04

5.  Tracking of menstrual cycles and prediction of the fertile window via measurements of basal body temperature and heart rate as well as machine-learning algorithms.

Authors:  Jia-Le Yu; Yun-Fei Su; Chen Zhang; Li Jin; Xian-Hua Lin; Lu-Ting Chen; He-Feng Huang; Yan-Ting Wu
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2022-08-13       Impact factor: 4.982

6.  Wearable sensors for prediction of intraamniotic infection in women with preterm premature rupture of membranes: a prospective proof of principle study.

Authors:  Romana Brun; Julia Girsberger; Martina Rothenbühler; Catrin Argyle; Juliane Hutmacher; Christian Haslinger; Brigitte Leeners
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-09-13       Impact factor: 2.493

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.