Cited by 32Reproductive Health and ContraceptionMobile Health and mHealth ApplicationsReproductive Health and Technologies

Published analysis of contraceptive effectiveness of Daysy and DaysyView app is fatally flawed

Open access
Polis, Chelsea B.·2018·Reproductive Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In March 2018, Dr. Martin C. Koch and colleagues published an analysis purporting to measure the effectiveness of the Daysy device and DaysyView app for the prevention of unintended pregnancy. Unfortunately, the analysis was flawed in multiple ways which render the estimates unreliable. Unreliable estimates of contraceptive effectiveness can endanger public health. MAIN BODY: This commentary details multiple concerns pertaining to the collection and analysis of data in Koch et al. 2018. A key concern pertains to the inappropriate exclusion of all women with fewer than 13 cycles of use from the Pearl Index calculations, which has no basis in standard effectiveness calculations. Multiple additional methodological concerns, as well as prior attempts to directly convey concerns to the manufacturer regarding marketing materials based on prior inaccurate analyses, are also discussed. CONCLUSION: The Koch et al. 2018 publication produced unreliable estimates of contraceptive effectiveness for the Daysy device and DaysyView app, which are likely substantially higher than the actual contraceptive effectiveness of the device and app. Those estimates are being used in marketing materials which may inappropriately inflate consumer confidence and leave consumers more vulnerable than expected to the risk of unintended pregnancy. Prior attempts to directly convey concerns to the manufacturer of this device were unsuccessful in preventing publication of subsequent inaccurate analyses. To protect public health, concerns with this analysis should be documented in the published literature, the Koch et al. 2018 analysis should be retracted, and marketing materials on contraceptive effectiveness should be subjected to appropriate oversight.

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 · 10.1186/s12978-018-0560-1

Cites

11 of 11 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?

  • Retrospective analyses of patient reported outcomes may suffer from data manipulation that may favor reporting of positive outcomes that support commercial objectives over negative findings, leading to significant bias.

    “Retrospective analyses of patient reported outcomes may also suffer from data manipulation that may favor reporting of positive outcomes that support commercial objectives over negative findings. This can lead to significant bias.”

    From What is the clinical value of mHealth for patients? (2020) · cites this paper as [36]

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Polis, C. B.
Affiliations
Guttmacher Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Polis, Chelsea B.
Venue
Reproductive Health
Published
2018-06-25
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
113-113
ISSN
1742-4755 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2808905849
Cited by
32
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5
FWCI
4.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Reproductive Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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
contraceptive effectiveness, Pearl index, menstrual cycle tracking, unintended pregnancy prevention, methodological errors, retraction, contraceptive marketing
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Contraceptive Effectiveness, Female, Humans, Ovulation Detection, Pregnancy, Pregnancy, Unplanned, 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