ArticleExperimental physiology2026
A comparison of methods to predict ovulation day, menstrual cycle characteristics and variability in professional female soccer players.
Article in Experimental physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the accuracy, reliability, and validity of menstrual cycle phase tracking equations in an applied sport setting.European journal of applied physiology · 2026Article
- A comparison of methods to predict ovulation day, menstrual cycle characteristics and variability in professional female soccer players.Experimental physiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to compare three methods of predicting ovulation day: (1) a positive urinary luteinising hormone test (LH), (2) a sustained rise in salivary progesterone above critical difference (SP), and (3) a countback regression equation (CB), to determine variability in the menstrual cycle (MC) lengths and reproductive hormone concentrations of professional female soccer players. Eight players provided daily morning saliva samples for three consecutive cycles. Samples were analysed for oestradiol and progesterone concentrations. Each MC was separated into the follicular (FP) and luteal (LP) phases relative to the day of ovulation, using the three different methods. MC length ranged from 24 to 32 days (28.3 ± 2.4 days); intra-assay coefficient of variation (7.5%) exceeded inter-assay coefficient of variation (4.6%). Ovulation estimated using SP (15.4 ± 3.0 days) occurred later than LH (13.3 ± 2.0 days) (P = 0.017). The CB method (14.1 ± 1.8 days) did not differ from SP (P = 0.102) or LH (P = 0.262). Oestradiol and progesterone levels varied significantly between sub-phases (P < 0.001). Inter-variability surpassed intra-variability for both hormones. Differences in methods for predicting ovulation indicate the need for standardised protocols. Individual variation in MC length and hormone concentrations challenges the narrative for group-level MC recommendations, emphasising the need for individualised hormone monitoring across multiple cycles.
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.