Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29940983›Full record

ArticleReproductive health2018

Published analysis of contraceptive effectiveness of Daysy and DaysyView app is fatally flawed.

Chelsea B Polis

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. CE: An Evidence-Based Update on Contraception.The American journal of nursing · 2020
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Chelsea B PolisGuttmacher Institute, 125 Maiden Lane, 7th Floor, New York, NY, 10038, USA. cpolis@guttmacher.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1031-7074

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Contraceptive EffectivenessMobile ApplicationsPregnancy, UnplannedFemaleHumansOvulation DetectionPregnancySmartphoneContraceptive effectivenessDaysyDaysyViewFertility awareness-based methods

Identifiers

PMID29940983
PMCPMC6020217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.