ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
The diagnostic accuracy of wearable digital technology in detecting fertility window and menstrual cycles: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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.
- Women's Health Wearables: From Continuous Signals to Actionable Digital Phenotypes Across the Reproductive Lifespan.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Multi-omics biomarkers in female fertility: from oocyte quality to endometrial receptivity and clinical translation.Biomarker research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis assessed the diagnostic accuracy of wearable digital technology (WDT) in monitoring women's fertility window compared to conventional methods. 8 databases were searched until January 1, 2025. 27 studies were included in the analysis, where 13 studies applied WDT in tracking ovulation. We evaluated the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) of WDT, and compared the performance of different designs of WDT by NMA analysis. The revised QUADAS-2 tool was used for quality assessment. Our results demonstrated that WDT presented a pooled accuracy of 0.88 (95% CI: 0.86-0.90), with a sensitivity of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70-0.87), specificity of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.60-1.00), PLR of 5.87 (95% CI: 2.49-13.88), NLR of 0.25 (95% CI: 0.13-0.51), DOR of 23.39 (95% CI: 3.45-158.71), and SROC of 0.75. Notably, WDT provided best detection for 3 days surrounding ovulation. Ring-type device, the use of multi-physiological parameters and the random forest algorithm method improved efficiency for WDT in the detection fertility window. Overall, WDT holds promise for fertility window tracking and could offer tentative support for optimizing pregnancy planning and monitoring women's reproductive health.
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.