A common definition of sub- and infertility is very important for the appropriate management of infertility. Subfertility generally describes any form of reduced fertility with prolonged time of unwanted non-conception. Infertility may be used synonymously with sterility with only sporadically occurring spontaneous pregnancies. The major factor affecting the individual spontaneous pregnancy prospect is the time of unwanted non-conception which determines the grading of subfertility. Most of the pregnancies occur in the first six cycles with intercourse in the fertile phase (80%). After that, serious subfertility must be assumed in every second couple (10%) although--after 12 unsuccessful cycles--untreated live birth rates among them will reach nearly 55% in the next 36 months. Thereafter (48 months), approximately 5% of the couples are definitive infertile with a nearly zero chance of becoming spontaneously pregnant in the future. With age, cumulative probabilities of conception decline because heterogeneity in fecundity increases due to a higher proportion of infertile couples. In truly fertile couples cumulative probabilities of conception are probably age independent. Under appropriate circumstances a basic infertility work-up after six unsuccessful cycles with fertility-focused intercourse will identify couples with significant infertility problems to avoid both infertility under- and over-treatment, regardless of age: Couples with a reasonably good prognosis (e.g. unexplained infertility) may be encouraged to wait because even with treatment they do not have a better chance of conceiving. The others may benefit from an early resort to assisted reproduction treatment.
The STM is a highly effective family planning method, provided the appropriate guidelines are consistently adhered to.
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.
Self-observation of the fertile window puts women into a position to develop a high level of reproductive competence that could be used much more in different areas than is currently the case.
BACKGROUND: The likelihood of spontaneous conception in subsequent cycles is important for a balanced management of infertility. Previous studies on time to pregnancy are mostly retrospective and biased because of exclusion of truly infertile couples. The study aim was to present a non-parametric estimation of cumulative probabilities of conception (CPC) in natural family planning (NFP) users illustrating an ideal of human fertility potential. METHODS: A total of 346 women was observed who used NFP methods to conceive from their ®rst cycle onwards. The couples practising NFP make optimal use of their fertility potential by timed intercourse. The CPC were estimated for the total group and for couples who ®nally conceived by calculating Kaplan-Meier survival rates. RESULTS: A total of 310 pregnancies occurred among the 346 women; the remaining 36 women (10.4%) did not conceive. Estimated CPC for the total group (n = 340 women) at one, three, six and 12 cycle(s) were 38, 68, 81 and 92% respectively. For those who ®nally conceived (truly fertile couples, n = 304 women), the respective pregnancy rates were 42, 75, 88 and 98% respectively. Although the numbers of couples in both groups were similar, the impact of age on time to conception, as judged by the Wilcoxon test, was less in the truly fertile than in the total group. CONCLUSIONS: Most couples conceive within six cycles with timed intercourse. Thereafter, every second couple is probably either subfertile or infertile. CPC decline with age because heterogeneity in fecundity increases. In the subgroup of truly fertile couples, an age-dependent decline in CPC is statistically less obvious because of high homogeneity, even with advancing age.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.