Kristine L. Lynch, Ph.D., Sunni L, Mumford, Ph.D., Karen C. Schliep, Ph.D., Brian W. Whitcomb, Ph.D., Shvetha M. Zarek, M.D., Anna Z. Pollack, Ph.D., Elizabeth R. Bertone-Johnson, Sc.D., Michelle Danaher, Ph.D., Jean Wactawski-Wende, Ph.D., Audrey J. Gaskins, B.S.E., Enrique F. Schisterman, Ph.D.
Volume 102, Issue 2, Pages 511–518.e2
To compare previously used algorithms to identify anovulatory menstrual cycles in women self-reporting regular menses.
Prospective cohort study.
Western New York.
Two hundred fifty-nine healthy, regularly menstruating women followed for one (n = 9) or two (n = 250) menstrual cycles (2005–2007).
Main Outcome Measure(s):
Prevalence of sporadic anovulatory cycles identified using 11 previously defined algorithms that use E2, P, and LH concentrations.
Algorithms based on serum LH, E2, and P levels detected a prevalence of anovulation across the study period of 5.5%–12.8% (concordant classification for 91.7%–97.4% of cycles). The prevalence of anovulatory cycles varied from 3.4% to 18.6% using algorithms based on urinary LH alone or with the primary E2 metabolite, estrone-3-glucuronide, levels.
The prevalence of anovulatory cycles among healthy women varied by algorithm. Mid-cycle LH surge urine-based algorithms used in over-the-counter fertility monitors tended to classify a higher proportion of anovulatory cycles compared with luteal-phase P serum-based algorithms. Our study demonstrates that algorithms based on the LH surge, or in conjunction with estrone-3-glucuronide, potentially estimate a higher percentage of anovulatory episodes. Addition of measurements of postovulatory serum P or urine pregnanediol may aid in detecting ovulation.
Read the full text at: http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(14)00395-1/fulltext