A comparison of methods to predict ovulation day, menstrual cycle characteristics and variability in professional female soccer players.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 PHYSIOLOGY
Rosie Anderson, Ian Rollo, Daniel Martin, Richard Burden, Rebecca K Randell, Craig Twist, Samantha L Moss
{"title":"A comparison of methods to predict ovulation day, menstrual cycle characteristics and variability in professional female soccer players.","authors":"Rosie Anderson, Ian Rollo, Daniel Martin, Richard Burden, Rebecca K Randell, Craig Twist, Samantha L Moss","doi":"10.1113/EP092476","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to compare three methods of predicting ovulation day: (1) a positive urinary luteinising hormone test (LH), (2) a sustained rise in salivary progesterone above critical difference (SP), and (3) a countback regression equation (CB), to determine variability in the menstrual cycle (MC) lengths and reproductive hormone concentrations of professional female soccer players. Eight players provided daily morning saliva samples for three consecutive cycles. Samples were analysed for oestradiol and progesterone concentrations. Each MC was separated into the follicular (FP) and luteal (LP) phases relative to the day of ovulation, using the three different methods. MC length ranged from 24 to 32 days (28.3 ± 2.4 days); intra-assay coefficient of variation (7.5%) exceeded inter-assay coefficient of variation (4.6%). Ovulation estimated using SP (15.4 ± 3.0 days) occurred later than LH (13.3 ± 2.0 days) (P = 0.017). The CB method (14.1 ± 1.8 days) did not differ from SP (P = 0.102) or LH (P = 0.262). Oestradiol and progesterone levels varied significantly between sub-phases (P < 0.001). Inter-variability surpassed intra-variability for both hormones. Differences in methods for predicting ovulation indicate the need for standardised protocols. Individual variation in MC length and hormone concentrations challenges the narrative for group-level MC recommendations, emphasising the need for individualised hormone monitoring across multiple cycles.</p>","PeriodicalId":12092,"journal":{"name":"Experimental Physiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental Physiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1113/EP092476","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHYSIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to compare three methods of predicting ovulation day: (1) a positive urinary luteinising hormone test (LH), (2) a sustained rise in salivary progesterone above critical difference (SP), and (3) a countback regression equation (CB), to determine variability in the menstrual cycle (MC) lengths and reproductive hormone concentrations of professional female soccer players. Eight players provided daily morning saliva samples for three consecutive cycles. Samples were analysed for oestradiol and progesterone concentrations. Each MC was separated into the follicular (FP) and luteal (LP) phases relative to the day of ovulation, using the three different methods. MC length ranged from 24 to 32 days (28.3 ± 2.4 days); intra-assay coefficient of variation (7.5%) exceeded inter-assay coefficient of variation (4.6%). Ovulation estimated using SP (15.4 ± 3.0 days) occurred later than LH (13.3 ± 2.0 days) (P = 0.017). The CB method (14.1 ± 1.8 days) did not differ from SP (P = 0.102) or LH (P = 0.262). Oestradiol and progesterone levels varied significantly between sub-phases (P < 0.001). Inter-variability surpassed intra-variability for both hormones. Differences in methods for predicting ovulation indicate the need for standardised protocols. Individual variation in MC length and hormone concentrations challenges the narrative for group-level MC recommendations, emphasising the need for individualised hormone monitoring across multiple cycles.

预测职业女足运动员排卵日、月经周期特征及变异性的方法比较。
本研究旨在比较三种预测排卵日的方法:(1)尿黄体生成素测试(LH)阳性,(2)唾液孕酮持续升高超过临界差(SP),(3)反向回归方程(CB),以确定职业女足运动员月经周期(MC)长度和生殖激素浓度的变异性。八名运动员连续三个周期每天早上提供唾液样本。对样品进行雌二醇和黄体酮浓度分析。使用三种不同的方法将每个MC相对于排卵日分为卵泡期(FP)和黄体期(LP)。MC长度为24 ~ 32天(28.3±2.4天);测定内变异系数(7.5%)超过测定间变异系数(4.6%)。SP(15.4±3.0 d)比LH(13.3±2.0 d)晚排卵(P = 0.017)。CB法(14.1±1.8 d)与SP法(P = 0.102)和LH法(P = 0.262)差异无统计学意义。雌二醇和黄体酮水平在各亚期间差异显著(P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Experimental Physiology
Experimental Physiology 医学-生理学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
262
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Experimental Physiology publishes research papers that report novel insights into homeostatic and adaptive responses in health, as well as those that further our understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms in disease. We encourage papers that embrace the journal’s orientation of translation and integration, including studies of the adaptive responses to exercise, acute and chronic environmental stressors, growth and aging, and diseases where integrative homeostatic mechanisms play a key role in the response to and evolution of the disease process. Examples of such diseases include hypertension, heart failure, hypoxic lung disease, endocrine and neurological disorders. We are also keen to publish research that has a translational aspect or clinical application. Comparative physiology work that can be applied to aid the understanding human physiology is also encouraged. Manuscripts that report the use of bioinformatic, genomic, molecular, proteomic and cellular techniques to provide novel insights into integrative physiological and pathophysiological mechanisms are welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信