Observational studySensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Can Wrist-Worn Medical Devices Correctly Identify Ovulation?
Observational study in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physiological Response to the COVID-19 Vaccine: Insights From a Prospective, Randomized, Single-Blinded, Crossover Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Trial
- The diagnostic accuracy of wearable digital technology in detecting fertility window and menstrual cycles: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Accuracy of an Overnight Axillary-Temperature Sensor for Ovulation Detection: Validation in 194 Cycles.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Hormonal fluctuations across the menstrual cycle lead to multiple changes in physiological parameters such as body temperature, cardiovascular function, respiratory rate and perfusion. Electronic wearables analyzing those parameters might present a convenient alternative to urinary ovulation tests for predicting the fertile window. (2) Methods: We conducted a prospective observational study including women aged 18-45 years without current hormonal therapy who used a wrist-worn medical device and urinary ovulation tests for a minimum of three cycles. We analyzed the accuracy of both the retrospective and prospective algorithms using a generalized linear mixed-effects model. The findings were compared to real-world data from bracelet users who also reported urinary ovulation tests. (3) Results: A total of 61 study participants contributing 205 cycles and 6081 real-life cycles from 3268 bracelet users were included in the analysis. The mean error in identifying ovulation with the wrist-worn medical device retrospective algorithm in the clinical study was 0.31 days (95% CI -0.13 to 0.75). The retrospective algorithm identified 75.4% of fertile days, and the prospective algorithm identified 73.8% of fertile days correctly within the pre-specified equivalence limits (±2 days). The quality of the retrospective algorithm in the clinical study could be confirmed by real-world data. (4) Conclusion: Our data indicate that wearable sensors may be used to accurately detect the periovulatory period.
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.