ArticleBMC women's health2014
Pilot test and validation of the peak day method of prospective determination of ovulation against a handheld urine hormone monitor.
Article in BMC women's health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2020Trial
- Characteristics of menstrual cycles with or without intercourse in women with no known subfertility.Human reproduction open · 2022Article
- Differential impacts of particulate air pollution exposure on early and late stages of spermatogenesis.Ecotoxicology and environmental safety · 2021Article
- Cervical mucus patterns and the fertile window in women without known subfertility: a pooled analysis of three cohorts.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- Menstrual bleeding, cycle length, and follicular and luteal phase lengths in women without known subfertility: A pooled analysis of three cohorts.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2020Article
- Male exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) and semen quality in the Home Observation of Periconceptional Exposures (HOPE) cohort.Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.) · 2019Article
- Association between peri-conceptional bisphenol A exposure in women and men and time to pregnancy-The HOPE study.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2019Article
- Compliance with daily, home-based collection of urinary biospecimens in a prospective, preconception cohort.Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2019Article
- Towards the Clinical Evaluation of the Luteal Phase in Fertile Women: A Preliminary Study of Normative Urinary Hormone Profiles.Frontiers in public health · 2018Article
- The Home Observation of Periconceptional Exposures (HOPE) study, a prospective cohort: aims, design, recruitment and compliance.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2016Observational
- Exposure Classification and Temporal Variability in Urinary Bisphenol A Concentrations among Couples in Utah--The HOPE Study.Environmental health perspectives · 2016Article
- Impact of preconception enrollment on birth enrollment and timing of exposure assessment in the initial vanguard cohort of the U.S. National Children's Study.BMC medical research methodology · 2015Article
- Current Medical ResearchWinter/Spring 2014.The Linacre quarterly · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransient exposures may influence fertility and early embryonic development. To assess the time of conception in vivo and conduct concurrent biomonitoring, ovulation must be identified prospectively. We report on the development and validation of a simple, prospective method, the Peak Day method, to determine likely day of ovulation based upon daily observations of cervical fluid.
methodsWe recruited 98 women to learn the Peak Day method from a brochure, 26 of whom concurrently used the method with blinded daily urine hormone monitoring (estrone glucuronide and luteinizing hormone). All women were instructed to complete an exposure questionnaire immediately upon identifying ovulation. Briefly, the exposure questionnaire captured time-varying and transient exposures such as medication use, water consumption, and amount of sleep. We assessed timely completion of the exposure questionnaire, agreement of women's estimated day of ovulation (EDO) and the EDO by expert review, and agreement between the EDO by expert review and by blinded urine monitoring.
resultsOf 147 cycles evaluated, women selected an EDO in 130 (88%) and subsequently completed the periovulatory exposure questionnaire in 122 (94%) cycles. Of the 26 cycles evaluated with blinded hormonal monitoring, the Peak Day "best quality" algorithm, based upon cervical fluid, identified ovulation ± 3 days of the urine monitor in 24 cycles (92%).
conclusionsWith simple written instructions, women can identify an estimated day of ovulation and perform periovulatory exposure assessment. The Peak Day method is highly cost-effective and could be applied by researchers to target periconceptional or very early developmental stage exposure assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.