ArticleEnvironmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.)2019
Compliance with daily, home-based collection of urinary biospecimens in a prospective, preconception cohort.
Article in Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trial
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExposures in the periconceptional environment may impact fertility and future health. Assessing time-varying exposures during the periconceptional window requires identifying approximate fertile windows around ovulation. In this prospective cohort study, we instructed women in daily cervical fluid observation and interpretation to identify incipient ovulation; they used this information to time daily urine collection for both partners. Timing and completeness of collection were compared to expert review.
methodsOne hundred seventy couples planning pregnancy enrolled from community volunteers from 2011 to 2015; women were taught the Peak Day method to identify fertile windows. Both partners collected daily urine specimens from the first day of fertile-quality fluid (estimator of the beginning of fertile window). Men discontinued on the estimated day of ovulation/conception +2 days; women continued through the onset of next menses, or positive pregnancy test at estimated day of ovulation/conception +18 days. We compared dates from samples with participants' fertility charts to determine proportion correctly collected. Also, expert reviewers judged on which days urine should have been collected, determining investigator-identified sampling days.
resultsOne hundred sixty-nine couples submitted 6,118 urine samples from 284 cycles. Reviewers and participants agreed in 87% of cycles for the date of the beginning of the fertile window ±3 days (65% exact-day agreement); agreement on ovulation date, ±3 days, was 93% (75% exact-day agreement). Five thousand three hundred twenty-nine female samples were expected based on investigator-identified sampling days, and 4,546 were collected, of which 82% were correctly collected on expected days. Fifty-nine percent of male samples were correctly collected relative to investigator-identified sampling days.
conclusionsIntensively-scheduled, biologically-triggered, at-home biospecimen collection can successfully be targeted to the periconceptional window and completed in a longitudinal cohort study.
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.