ArticleReproductive health2018
Published analysis of contraceptive effectiveness of Daysy and DaysyView app is fatally flawed.
Article in Reproductive health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability of Cycle Applications for Pregnancy Planning and Contraception: A Systematic Review.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health · 2025Review
- Use of Fertility Awareness-Based Methods for Pregnancy Prevention Among Ghanaian Women: A Nationally Representative Cross-Sectional Survey.Global health, science and practice · 2021Article
- CE: An Evidence-Based Update on Contraception.The American journal of nursing · 2020Review
- What is the clinical value of mHealth for patients?NPJ digital medicine · 2020Review
- Advances in Precision Health and Emerging Diagnostics for Women.Journal of clinical medicine · 2019Review
- Clarifications concerning the commentary "Published analysis of contraceptive effectiveness of Daysy and DaysyView app is fatally flawed".Reproductive health · 2019Article
- Retraction Note: Improving usability and pregnancy rates of a fertility monitor by an additional mobile application: results of a retrospective efficacy study of Daysy and DaysyView app.Reproductive health · 2019Article
- The State of Digital Interventions for Demand Generation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Considerations, Emerging Approaches, and Research Gaps.Global health, science and practice · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn March 2018, Dr. Martin C. Koch and colleagues published an analysis purporting to measure the effectiveness of the Daysy device and DaysyView app for the prevention of unintended pregnancy. Unfortunately, the analysis was flawed in multiple ways which render the estimates unreliable. Unreliable estimates of contraceptive effectiveness can endanger public health. MAIN BODY: This commentary details multiple concerns pertaining to the collection and analysis of data in Koch et al. 2018. A key concern pertains to the inappropriate exclusion of all women with fewer than 13 cycles of use from the Pearl Index calculations, which has no basis in standard effectiveness calculations. Multiple additional methodological concerns, as well as prior attempts to directly convey concerns to the manufacturer regarding marketing materials based on prior inaccurate analyses, are also discussed.
conclusionThe Koch et al. 2018 publication produced unreliable estimates of contraceptive effectiveness for the Daysy device and DaysyView app, which are likely substantially higher than the actual contraceptive effectiveness of the device and app. Those estimates are being used in marketing materials which may inappropriately inflate consumer confidence and leave consumers more vulnerable than expected to the risk of unintended pregnancy. Prior attempts to directly convey concerns to the manufacturer of this device were unsuccessful in preventing publication of subsequent inaccurate analyses. To protect public health, concerns with this analysis should be documented in the published literature, the Koch et al. 2018 analysis should be retracted, and marketing materials on contraceptive effectiveness should be subjected to appropriate oversight.
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.