Using cervical mucus and other easily observed biomarkers to identify ovulation in prospective pregnancy trials

Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology

Volumn 20, Issue SUPPL. 1, 2006, Pages 26-29

  Zinaman, Michael J ^a,b  

^a LOYOLA UNIVERSITY CHICAGO   (United States)

^b Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility   (United States)

Author keywords

Basal body temperature; Cervical mucus; Conception; Natural family planning; Ovulation

Indexed keywords

COHORT ANALYSIS; CONFERENCE PAPER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; HUMAN; HUMAN DEVELOPMENT; MENSTRUAL CYCLE; OVULATION; PREGNANCY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; UTERINE CERVIX MUCOSA; VAGINA DISCHARGE;

BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CERVIX MUCUS; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; FERTILIZATION; HUMANS; OVULATION DETECTION; PREGNANCY; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 33750237412     PISSN: 02695022     EISSN: 13653016     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2006.00767.x     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (31)

1. Branum AM, Collman GW, Correa A, Keim SA, Kessel W, Kimmel CA, et al. The National Children's Study of environmental effects on child health and development. Environmental Health Perspectives 2003; 111:642-646.
2. Chapin RE, Buck GM. Our once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Environmental Health Perspectives 2004; 112:67-68.
3. Trasande L, Landrigan PJ. The National Children's Study: a critical national investment. Environmental Health Perspectives 2004; 112:A789-A790.
4. Lynch CD, Jackson LW, Buck Louis GM. Estimation of the day-specific probabilities of conception: current state of the knowledge and the relevance for epidemiological research. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 2006; 20 (Suppl. 1):3-12.
5. Campbell KL, Rockett JC. Biomarkers of ovulation, endometrial receptivity, fertilisation, implantation and early pregnancy progression. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 2006; 20(Suppl. 1):13-25.
6. World Health Organisation. A prospective multicentre trial of the ovulation method of natural family planning. II. The effectiveness phase. Fertility and Sterility 1981; 36:591-598.
7. Klaus H. Natural family planning: a review. Obstetrical and Gynecological Survey 1982; 37:128-150.
8. Bigelow JL, Dunson DB, Stanford JB, Echochard R, Gnoth C, Colombo B. Mucus observations in the fertile window: a better predictor of conception than timing of intercourse. Human Reproduction 2004; 19:889-892.
9. Stanford JB, White GL, Hatasaka H. Timing of intercourse to achieve pregnancy: current evidence. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2002; 100:1333-1341.
10. Stanford JB, Smith KR, Dunson DB. Vulvar mucus observations and the probability of pregnancy. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2003; 101:1285-1293.
11. Wilcox AJ, Weinberg CR, Baird DD. Timing of sexual intercourse in relation to ovulation: effects of the probability of conception, survival of the pregnancy, and sex of the baby. New England Journal of Medicine 1995; 333:1517-1521.
12. World Health Organisation Task Force on Methods for the Determination of the Fertile Period: temporal relationships between indices of the fertile period. Fertility and Sterility 1983; 39:647-655.
13. Fehring RJ, Raviele K, Schneider M. A comparison of the fertile phase as determined by the Clearplan Easy Fertility Monitor and self-assessment of cervical mucus. Contraception 2004; 69:9-14.
14. Ecochard R, Boehringer H, Rabilloud M, Marret H. Chronological aspects of ultrasonic, hormonal, and other indirect indices of ovulation. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2001; 108:822-829.
15. Leader A, Wiseman D, Taylor PJ. The prediction of ovulation: a comparison of the basal body temperature graph, cervical mucus score and real-time pelvic ultrasonography. Fertility and Sterility 1985; 43:385-388.
16. Alliende M, Cabezon C, Figuero H, Kottman C. Cervicovaginal fluid changes to detect ovulation accurately. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2005; 193:71-75.
17. Katz D, Slade D, Nakajima S. Analysis of preovulatory changes in cervical mucus hydration and sperm penetrability. Advances in Contraception 1997; 13:143-151.
18. Guida M, Tommaselli GA, Palomba S, Pellicano M, Moccia G, Di Carlo C, et al. Efficacy of methods for determining ovulation in a natural family planning program. Fertility and Sterility 1999; 72:900-904.
19. World Health Organisation. A prospective multicentre trial of the ovulation method of natural family planning. III. Characteristics of the menstrual cycle and of the fertile phase. Fertility and Sterility 1983; 40:773-778.
20. Weissmann MC, Foliaki L, Billings EL, Billings JJ. A trial of the ovulation method of family planning in Tonga. Lancet 1972; 2:813-816.
21. Dunson DB, Colombo B. Bayesian modeling of markers of day-specific fertility. Journal of the American Statistical Association 2003; 98:28-37.
22. Scarpa B, Dunson DB. Bayesian selection of predictors of conception probabilities across the menstrual cycle. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 2006; 20(Suppl. 1):30-37.
23. Trussell J, Grummer-Strawn L. Further analysis of contraceptive failure of the ovulation method. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1991; 165:2054-2059.
24. Bhargava H, Bhatia JC, Ramachandran L, Rohatgi P, Sinha A. Field trial of Billings ovulation method of natural family planning. Contraception 1996; 53:69-74.
25. Howard MP, Stanford JB. Pregnancy probabilities during use of the Creighton Model Fertility Care System. Archives of Family Medicine 1999; 8:391-402.
26. Xu JX, Yan JH, Fan DZ, Zhang DW. Billings natural family planning in Shanghai, China. Advances in Contraception 1994; 10:195-204.
27. Arevalo M, Jennings V, Nikula M, Sinai I. Efficacy of the new TwoDay Method of family planning. Fertility and Sterility 2004; 82:885-892.
28. World Health Organisation. A prospective multicentre trial of the ovulation method of natural family planning. I. The teaching phase. Fertility and Sterility 1981; 36:152-158.
29. Kambic RT, Lamprecht V. Calendar rhythm efficacy: a review. Advances in Contraception 1996; 12:123-128.
30. Wilcox AJ, Dunson D, Baird DD. The timing of the 'fertile window' in the menstrual cycle: day specific estimates from a prospective study. British Medical Journal 2000; 321:1259-1262.
31. Arevalo M, Jennings V, Sinai I. Efficacy of a new method of family planning: the Standard Days Method. Contraception 2002; 65:333-338.