• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Public Health >Plausibility of Menstrual Cycle Apps Claiming to Support Conception
【24h】

Plausibility of Menstrual Cycle Apps Claiming to Support Conception

机译：月经周期应用程序声称支持概念的合理性

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The interval of peak fertility during the menstrual cycle is of limited duration, and the day of ovulation varies, even in women with fairly regular cycles. Therefore, menstrual cycle apps identifying the “fertile window” for women trying to conceive must be quite precise. A deviation of a few days may lead the couple to focus on less- or non-fertile days for sexual intercourse and thus may be worse than random intercourse. The aim of the present investigation was to develop a scoring system for rating available apps for determining the fertile window and secondarily pilot test 12 apps currently available in both German and English (consisting of 6 calendar-based apps: Clue Menstruations- und Zykluskalender, Flo Menstruationskalender, Maya-Mein Periodentracker, Menstruationskalender Pro, Period Tracker Deluxe, and WomanLog-Pro-Kalender; 2 calculothermal apps: Ovy and Natural Cycles; and 4 symptothermal apps: myNFP, Lady Cycle, Lily, and OvuView). The calendar-based apps were investigated by entering several series of cycles with varying lengths, whereas the symptom-based apps were examined by entering data of cycles with known temperature rise, cervical mucus pattern, and clinical ovulation. The main criteria for evaluating the cycle apps were as follows: (1) What methods/parameters were used to determine the fertile window? (2) What study results exist concerning that underlying method/parameters? (3) What study results exist concerning the app itself? (4) Was there a qualified counseling service? The calendar-based apps predicted the fertile days based on data of previous cycles. They obtained zero points in our scoring system, as they did not comply with any of the evaluated criteria. Calculothermal apps had similar deficits for predicting the most fertile days and produced suboptimal results (Ovy 3/30 points and Natural Cycles 2/30 points). The symptothermal apps determined the fertile days based on parameters of the current cycle: Lady Cycle scored 20/30 points, myNFP 20/30 points, Lily 19/30 points, and OvuView 11/30 points. We concluded that the available cycle apps vary according to their underlying scientific quality and clear rating criteria have been suggested. Three of the tested apps were judged to be eligible for further study. The scientific evaluation of cycle apps depends on good prospective studies undertaken by independent investigators who are free of commercial bias.
机译：在月经周期中，最高生育力的间隔时间有限，即使在周期相对规律的女性中，排卵日也有所不同。因此，月经周期应用程序必须为那些试图受孕的妇女确定“肥沃的窗户”。几天的偏离可能会导致这对夫妻专注于性交的时间较少或不肥沃，因此可能比随机性交更糟。本次调查的目的是开发一种评分系统，用于对可确定应用程序窗口的可用应用程序进行评级，然后对目前可用的德语和英语版本的12种应用程序进行二次测试（由6种基于日历的应用程序组成：Clue Menstruations-和Zykluskalender，Flo Menstruationskalender，Maya-Mein Periodentracker，Menstruationskalender Pro，Period Tracker Deluxe和WomanLog-Pro-Kalender; 2个计算热量应用程序：Ovy和Natural Cycles;以及4个对症加热应用程序：myNFP，Lady Cycle，Lily和OvuView）。通过输入具有不同长度的多个周期系列来研究基于日历的应用程序，而通过输入已知温度上升，宫颈粘液模式和临床排卵的周期数据来检查基于症状的应用程序。评估周期应用程序的主要标准如下：（1）使用哪些方法/参数确定可育窗口？ （2）关于该基本方法/参数有哪些研究结果？ （3）关于该应用程序本身有哪些研究结果？ （4）是否有合格的咨询服务？基于日历的应用程序根据先前周期的数据预测了肥沃的日子。他们不符合任何评估标准，因此在我们的评分系统中获得了零分。 Calculothermal应用程序在预测最肥沃的日子时也有类似的缺陷，并且产生了次优的结果（Ovy 3/30点和Natural Cycles 2/30点）。症状热应用程序根据当前周期的参数确定了肥沃的日子：Lady Cycle得分20/30，myNFP 20/30，Lily 19/30，OvuView 11/30。我们得出的结论是，可用的循环应用程序根据其基本的科学质量而有所不同，并且已提出了明确的评级标准。其中三个经过测试的应用程序被判定符合进一步研究的条件。周期应用的科学评估取决于独立调查员进行的良好前瞻性研究，这些调查员应避免商业偏见。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号