Cited by 102Reproductive Health and ContraceptionMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsReproductive Health and Technologies

Perfect-use and typical-use Pearl Index of a contraceptive mobile app

Open access
Berglund Scherwitzl, E., Lundberg, O., Kopp Kallner, H., Gemzell Danielsson, K., Trussell, J., Scherwitzl, R.·2017·Contraception

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The Natural Cycles application is a fertility awareness-based contraceptive method that uses dates of menstruation and basal body temperature to inform couples whether protected intercourse is needed to prevent pregnancies. Our purpose with this study is to investigate the contraceptive efficacy of the mobile application by evaluating the perfect- and typical-use Pearl Index. STUDY DESIGN: In this prospective observational study, 22,785 users of the application logged a total of 18,548 woman-years of data into the application. We used these data to calculate typical- and perfect-use Pearl Indexes, as well as 13-cycle pregnancy rates using life-table analysis. RESULTS: We found a typical-use Pearl Index of 6.9 pregnancies per 100 woman-years [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.5-7.2], corrected to 6.8 (95% CI: 6.4-7.2) when truncating users after 12months. We estimated a 13-cycle typical-use failure rate of 8.3% (95% CI: 7.8-8.9). We found that the perfect-use Pearl Index was 1.0 pregnancy per 100 woman-years (95% CI: 0.5-1.5). Finally, we estimated that the rate of pregnancies from cycles where the application erroneously flagged a fertile day as infertile was 0.5 (95% CI: 0.4-0.7) per 100 woman-years. We estimated a discontinuation rate over 12months of 54%. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the efficacy of a contraceptive mobile application is higher than usually reported for traditional fertility awareness-based methods. The application may contribute to reducing the unmet need for contraception. IMPLICATIONS: The measured typical- and perfect-use efficacies of the mobile application Natural Cycles are important parameters for women considering their contraceptive options as well as for the clinicians advising them. The large available data set in this paper allows for future studies on acceptability, for example, by studying the efficacy for different cohorts and geographic regions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.contraception.2017.08.014

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berglund Scherwitzl, E., Lundberg, O., Kopp Kallner, H., Gemzell Danielsson, K., Trussell, J., & Scherwitzl, R.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Corresponding author
Scherwitzl, R.
Venue
Contraception
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-12
Volume
96
Issue
6
Pages
420-425
ISSN
0010-7824 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2753078900
Cited by
101
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2015: 1
FWCI
10.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Contraception (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24HD047879, P2CHD047879)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
Keywords
natural cycle, mobile health apps, Pearl index, contraceptive efficacy, basal body temperature, menstrual cycle tracking, pregnancy rate, unmet need for contraception
MeSH terms
Adult, Body Temperature, Contraception, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Prospective Studies, Natural Family Planning Methods, Pregnancy Rate, Young Adult, Mobile Applications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review