Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2020 Mar;34(2):105-113.
doi: 10.1111/ppe.12642.

Comparison of woman-picked, expert-picked, and computer-picked Peak Day of cervical mucus with blinded urine luteinising hormone surge for concurrent identification of ovulation

Joseph B Stanford  1 , Karen C Schliep  1 , Chun-Pin Chang  1 , John-Paul O'Sullivan  2 , Christina A Porucznik  1
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison of woman-picked, expert-picked, and computer-picked Peak Day of cervical mucus with blinded urine luteinising hormone surge for concurrent identification of ovulation

Joseph B Stanford et al. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2020 Mar.

Abstract

Background: Previous research has demonstrated that women instructed in fertility awareness methods can identify the Peak Day of cervical mucus discharge for each menstrual cycle, and the Peak Day has high agreement with other indicators of the day of ovulation. However, previous studies enrolled experienced users of fertility awareness methods or were not fully blinded.

Objective: To assess the agreement between cervical mucus Peak Day identified by fertile women without prior experience on assessing cervical mucus discharge with the estimated day of ovulation (1 day after urine luteinising hormone surge).

Methods: This study is a secondary analysis of data from a randomised trial of the Creighton Model FertilityCareTM System (CrM), conducted 2003-2006, for women trying to conceive. Women who had no prior experience tracking cervical mucus recorded vulvar observations daily using a standardised assessment of mucus characteristics for up to seven menstrual cycles. Four approaches were used to identify the Peak Day. The referent day was defined as one day after the first identified day of luteinising hormone (LH) surge in the urine, assessed blindly. The percentage of agreement between the Peak Day and the referent day of ovulation was calculated.

Results: Fifty-seven women with 187 complete cycles were included. A Peak Day was identified in 117 (63%) cycles by women, 185 (99%) cycles by experts, and 187 (100%) by computer algorithm. The woman-picked Peak Day was the same as the referent day in 25% of 117 cycles, within ±1 day in 58% of cycles, ±2 days in 84%, ±3 days in 87%, and ±4 days in 92%. The ±1 day and ± 4 days' agreement was 50% and 90% for the expert-picked and 47% and 87% for the computer-picked Peak Day, respectively.

Conclusions: Women's daily tracking of cervical mucus is a low-cost alternative for identifying the estimated day of ovulation.

Keywords: biomonitoring; cervical mucus; creighton model fertilitycare system; fertility; ovulation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

Joseph B. Stanford has served as a scientific consultant for Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmbH, which manufactures the Clearblue™ Fertility Monitor. The other authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Selection of cycles for analysis
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Colombo B, Masarotto G. Daily fecundability: first results from a new data base. Demogr Res. 2000;3:39. - PubMed
    1. Vollman RF. The menstrual cycle. In: Friedman EA ed. Major Problems in Obstetrics Gynecology. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders WB; 1977:7, 1–193. It is volume 7 of a series of monographs, titled, series editor. - PubMed
    1. Chandra A, Copen CE, Stephen EH. Infertility service use in the United States: data from the National Survey of Family Growth, 1982–2010. Natl Health Stat Report. 2014;73:1–21. - PubMed
    1. Mascarenhas MN, Flaxman SR, Boerma T, Vanderpoel S, Stevens GA. National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: a systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001356. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Thoma ME, McLain AC, Louis JF, et al. Prevalence of infertility in the United States as estimated by the current duration approach and a traditional constructed approach. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(1324–1331):e1321. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types