↓ Skip to main content

Plausibility of Menstrual Cycle Apps Claiming to Support Conception

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
9 X users
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
Plausibility of Menstrual Cycle Apps Claiming to Support Conception
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00098
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander Freis, Tanja Freundl-Schütt, Lisa-Maria Wallwiener, Sigfried Baur, Thomas Strowitzki, Günter Freundl, Petra Frank-Herrmann

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Researcher 7 8%
Other 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 4%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 43 48%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 21%
Computer Science 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Engineering 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 43 48%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 82. 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 05 July 2023.
All research outputs
#494,875
of 24,557,820 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#235
of 12,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,637
of 333,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#8
of 115 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,557,820 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 333,590 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 115 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 93% of its contemporaries.