CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 101Reproductive Health and ContraceptionReproductive Health and TechnologiesHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 98 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effectiveness of Fertility Awareness–Based Methods for Pregnancy Prevention: A Systematic Review

Peragallo Urrutia, Rachel, Polis, Chelsea B., Jensen, Elizabeth T., Greene, Margaret E., Kennedy, Emily, Stanford, Joseph B.·2018·Obstetrics & Gynecology
DOI 10.1097/aog.0000000000002784
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To summarize best available prospective data on typical and perfect use effectiveness of fertility awareness–based methods for avoiding pregnancy. DATA SOURCES: 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. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: 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. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/aog.0000000000002784

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. de Leizaola, 1998, Prospective study of the effectiveness of a new symptothermal method of natural family planning [in French], J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris), 27, 174
  2. Guerrero, 1970, Evaluation of periodic continence as a method of family planning [in Spanish], Rev Colomb Obstet Ginecol, 21, 545
  3. Johnston, 1979, NFP services and methods in Australia: a survey evaluation, Int Rev Nat Fam Plann, 3, 20
  4. Parenteau-Carreau, 1976, International Fairfield Study on the effectiveness of the sympto-thermal method of family planning. Canadian results compared to world results [in French], Vie Med Can Fr, 4, 145
  5. Pérez, 1983, Clinical effectiveness of the ovulation method (Billings) [in Spanish], Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol, 48, 97
  6. Rice, 1981, Effectiveness of the sympto-thermal method of natural family planning: an international study, Int J Fertil, 26, 222

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 101

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Peragallo Urrutia, R., Polis, C. B., Jensen, E. T., Greene, M. E., Kennedy, E., & Stanford, J. B.
ORCID
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2018-09
Volume
132
Issue
3
Pages
591-604
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/aog.0000000000002784
OpenAlex
W2887193321
Cited by
101
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 5
FWCI
1.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Keywords
fertility awareness-based methods, contraception, contraceptive effectiveness, Standard Days Method, Billings Ovulation Method, basal body temperature, symptothermal method, personas, natural family planning
MeSH terms
Awareness, Family Planning Services, Female, Fertility, Humans, Pregnancy, Reproductive Techniques

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