ArticlePaediatric and perinatal epidemiology2024
The association between the use of fertility indicators and fecundability in a Danish preconception cohort.
Article in Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology, 2024. 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.
- Empowering fertility: Integrating indicators into personalised reproductive care.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2024Article
- The association between the use of fertility indicators and fecundability in a Danish preconception cohort.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of fertility indicators to predict ovulation has largely been studied for contraceptive purposes, while less so as fertility-promoting tools.
objectiveTo investigate the association between fertility indicators and fecundability in Danish women trying to conceive.
methodsWeb-based preconception cohort study. We analysed data from 11,328 females aged 18-49 years trying to conceive without fertility treatment for ≤6 menstrual cycles, from the Danish SnartGravid.dk and SnartForældre.dk cohorts (2007-2023). Participants reported the use of fertility indicators (counting days since the last menstrual period, cervical fluid monitoring, urinary ovulation testing, feeling ovulation, using a smartphone fertility app and measuring basal body temperature [BBT]). Time to pregnancy was measured in menstrual cycles ascertained by self-reported pregnancy status. We estimated fecundability ratios (FR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using proportional probabilities regression models adjusted for age, socio-economic position, health indicators, reproductive history and gynaecological factors.
resultsFertility indicators were used by 63.3% of participants at study entry. Counting days was the most common (46.9%), while measuring BBT was the least (3.0%). Other indicators ranged from 17.0% to 23.6%, with 69.7% using more than one indicator. Compared with non-use, use of any fertility indicator was associated with greater fecundability (adjusted FR 1.14, 95% CI 1.08, 1.19). Cervical fluid monitoring showed the strongest association (aFR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03, 2.07), followed by urinary ovulation testing (aFR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16, 1.58) and counting days (aFR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09, 1.29). Feeling ovulation and fertility apps were modestly associated with fecundability, while measuring BBT was not associated. Sensitivity analysis restricting to ≤2 cycles of attempt time and two cycles of follow-up showed an aFR for any indicator use of 1.21 (95% CI 1.13, 1.31).
conclusionIn this Danish preconception cohort, use of fertility indicators was associated with a higher fecundability, varying by type of indicator.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.