↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of Fertility Awareness–Based Methods for Pregnancy Prevention

Overview of attention for article published in Obstetrics & Gynecology, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#38 of 8,979)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
66 news outlets
blogs
7 blogs
twitter
83 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Readers on

mendeley
169 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of Fertility Awareness–Based Methods for Pregnancy Prevention
Published in
Obstetrics & Gynecology, September 2018
DOI 10.1097/aog.0000000000002784
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Peragallo Urrutia, Chelsea B. Polis, Elizabeth T. Jensen, Margaret E. Greene, Emily Kennedy, Joseph B. Stanford

Abstract

To summarize best available prospective data on typical and perfect use effectiveness of fertility awareness-based methods for avoiding pregnancy. We conducted a systematic review of studies published in English, Spanish, French, or German by June 2017 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We reviewed 8,755 unique citations and included 53 studies that contained 50 or greater women using a specific fertility awareness-based method to avoid pregnancy, calculated life table pregnancy probabilities or Pearl rates, and prospectively measured pregnancy intentions and outcomes. We systematically evaluated study quality. Of 53 included studies, we ranked 0 high quality, 21 moderate quality, and 32 low quality for our question of interest. Among moderate-quality studies, first-year typical use pregnancy rates or probabilities per 100 woman-years varied widely: 11.2-14.1 for the Standard Days Method, 13.7 for the TwoDay Method, 10.5-33.6 for the Billings Ovulation Method, 4-18.5 for the Marquette Mucus-only Method, 9.0-9.8 for basal body temperature methods, 13.2 for single-check symptothermal methods, 11.2-33.0 for Thyma double-check symptothermal methods, 1.8 for Sensiplan, 25.6 for Persona, 2-6.8 for the Marquette Monitor-only Method, and 6-7 for the Marquette Monitor and Mucus Method. First-year perfect use pregnancy rates or probabilities among moderate-quality studies were 4.8 for the Standard Days Method, 3.5 for the TwoDay Method, 1.1-3.4 for the Billings Ovulation Method, 2.7 for the Marquette Mucus Method, 0.4 for Sensiplan, 12.1 for Persona, and 0 for the Marquette Monitor. Studies on the effectiveness of each fertility awareness-based method are few and of low to moderate quality. Pregnancy rates or probabilities varied widely across different fertility awareness-based methods (and in some cases, within method types), even after excluding low-quality studies. Variability across populations studied precludes comparisons across methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 83 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 169 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 169 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 12%
Researcher 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 7%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Other 11 7%
Other 28 17%
Unknown 67 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 4%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 2%
Other 19 11%
Unknown 74 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 615. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 February 2024.
All research outputs
#37,361
of 25,793,330 outputs
Outputs from Obstetrics & Gynecology
#38
of 8,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#742
of 346,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Obstetrics & Gynecology
#1
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,793,330 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,979 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,834 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.