ReviewCureus2025
Fertility Awareness-Based Methods for Family Planning: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fertility awareness-based methods (FABMs) have been used for a long time for family planning. This systematic review evaluates the efficacy and outcomes of various FABMs used for family planning. For this systematic review, a literature search was carried out in PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL Ultimate, and Google Scholar. The inclusion criteria included women aged 18-49 undergoing FABMs for either contraception or to conceive. The search was limited from 2014 to 2024. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (ROB2). A total of 16 studies, including 20,339 participants, were included. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 47 years. Regarding study design, 11 were prospective, two were retrospective, two were randomized, and one was a longitudinal study. The average success rate of all FABMs was 69.5%. In five studies, the success rate was above 90%. Among factors that influenced the success rate were the timing of intercourse and adherence to method protocols. FABMs are effective tools for enhancing the success rate of family planning. However, FABMs when enhanced with digital technology are particularly effective for both contraception and conception. Adequate user education and consistent application are essential to optimize outcomes.
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.