ReviewMayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health2025
Reliability of Cycle Applications for Pregnancy Planning and Contraception: A Systematic Review.
Review in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Digital health, 2025. 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.
- Decoding menstrual health across the lifespan: a scoping review of digital health tools in research.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Decoding menstrual health across the lifespan: a scoping review of digital health tools in research.npj women's health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To show the effectiveness of cycle applications in both areas of application-contraception and intended pregnancy. Methods: A systematic review based on the PubMed and Google Scholar databases, with the addition of a hand search, was conducted from May 11, 2023, through April 11, 2024, to objectively answer this question. Of 1539 sources with matching search terms, 19 sources remained after checking for inclusion criteria according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scheme. These were analyzed according to an evaluation scale regarding their quality in various areas. The average quality ratings and pregnancy probabilities of the studies were compared. Results: Comparability within and between the subquestions was hardly possible owing to different presentation of results, bias risks, and mostly uncontrolled study designs. Applications for those wishing to become pregnant provided better quality ratings in some cases. There were indications that cycle applications shorten the time to achieving a desired pregnancy in cases of reduced fertility. In addition, some seem to have a similar contraceptive safety as the contraceptive pill but require significantly more compliance. Conclusion: Independent, controlled studies with a diverse clientele of test subjects are necessary for a scientific classification. In addition, social, structural, and political adjustments are needed to enable individuals to make informed decisions about the use of cycle and fertility applications.
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.