Emma Skovgaard Pedersen, Ellen M Mikkelsen, Henrik Toft Sørensen, Elizabeth E Hatch, Lauren A Wise, Kenneth J Rothman, Joseph B Stanford, Anne Sofie Dam Laursen
{"title":"丹麦孕前队列中生育指标的使用与受孕率之间的关系。","authors":"Emma Skovgaard Pedersen, Ellen M Mikkelsen, Henrik Toft Sørensen, Elizabeth E Hatch, Lauren A Wise, Kenneth J Rothman, Joseph B Stanford, Anne Sofie Dam Laursen","doi":"10.1111/ppe.13108","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of fertility indicators to predict ovulation has largely been studied for contraceptive purposes, while less so as fertility-promoting tools.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the association between fertility indicators and fecundability in Danish women trying to conceive.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Web-based preconception cohort study. We analysed data from 11,328 females aged 18-49 years trying to conceive without fertility treatment for ≤6 menstrual cycles, from the Danish SnartGravid.dk and SnartForældre.dk cohorts (2007-2023). Participants reported the use of fertility indicators (counting days since the last menstrual period, cervical fluid monitoring, urinary ovulation testing, feeling ovulation, using a smartphone fertility app and measuring basal body temperature [BBT]). Time to pregnancy was measured in menstrual cycles ascertained by self-reported pregnancy status. We estimated fecundability ratios (FR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using proportional probabilities regression models adjusted for age, socio-economic position, health indicators, reproductive history and gynaecological factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fertility indicators were used by 63.3% of participants at study entry. Counting days was the most common (46.9%), while measuring BBT was the least (3.0%). Other indicators ranged from 17.0% to 23.6%, with 69.7% using more than one indicator. Compared with non-use, use of any fertility indicator was associated with greater fecundability (adjusted FR 1.14, 95% CI 1.08, 1.19). Cervical fluid monitoring showed the strongest association (aFR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03, 2.07), followed by urinary ovulation testing (aFR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16, 1.58) and counting days (aFR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09, 1.29). Feeling ovulation and fertility apps were modestly associated with fecundability, while measuring BBT was not associated. Sensitivity analysis restricting to ≤2 cycles of attempt time and two cycles of follow-up showed an aFR for any indicator use of 1.21 (95% CI 1.13, 1.31).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this Danish preconception cohort, use of fertility indicators was associated with a higher fecundability, varying by type of indicator.</p>","PeriodicalId":19698,"journal":{"name":"Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"641-650"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11603762/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The association between the use of fertility indicators and fecundability in a Danish preconception cohort.\",\"authors\":\"Emma Skovgaard Pedersen, Ellen M Mikkelsen, Henrik Toft Sørensen, Elizabeth E Hatch, Lauren A Wise, Kenneth J Rothman, Joseph B Stanford, Anne Sofie Dam Laursen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ppe.13108\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of fertility indicators to predict ovulation has largely been studied for contraceptive purposes, while less so as fertility-promoting tools.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To investigate the association between fertility indicators and fecundability in Danish women trying to conceive.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Web-based preconception cohort study. We analysed data from 11,328 females aged 18-49 years trying to conceive without fertility treatment for ≤6 menstrual cycles, from the Danish SnartGravid.dk and SnartForældre.dk cohorts (2007-2023). Participants reported the use of fertility indicators (counting days since the last menstrual period, cervical fluid monitoring, urinary ovulation testing, feeling ovulation, using a smartphone fertility app and measuring basal body temperature [BBT]). Time to pregnancy was measured in menstrual cycles ascertained by self-reported pregnancy status. We estimated fecundability ratios (FR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using proportional probabilities regression models adjusted for age, socio-economic position, health indicators, reproductive history and gynaecological factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fertility indicators were used by 63.3% of participants at study entry. Counting days was the most common (46.9%), while measuring BBT was the least (3.0%). Other indicators ranged from 17.0% to 23.6%, with 69.7% using more than one indicator. Compared with non-use, use of any fertility indicator was associated with greater fecundability (adjusted FR 1.14, 95% CI 1.08, 1.19). Cervical fluid monitoring showed the strongest association (aFR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03, 2.07), followed by urinary ovulation testing (aFR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16, 1.58) and counting days (aFR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09, 1.29). Feeling ovulation and fertility apps were modestly associated with fecundability, while measuring BBT was not associated. Sensitivity analysis restricting to ≤2 cycles of attempt time and two cycles of follow-up showed an aFR for any indicator use of 1.21 (95% CI 1.13, 1.31).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this Danish preconception cohort, use of fertility indicators was associated with a higher fecundability, varying by type of indicator.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"641-650\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11603762/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.13108\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.13108","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:使用生育指标预测排卵在很大程度上是为了避孕,而作为促进生育的工具则较少:调查丹麦试孕女性的生育指标与受孕率之间的关系:方法:基于网络的孕前队列研究。我们分析了丹麦SnartGravid.dk和SnartForældre.dk队列(2007-2023年)中11328名18-49岁女性的数据,这些女性在未接受生育治疗的情况下尝试怀孕,且月经周期少于6个。参与者报告了使用生育指标的情况(计算末次月经后的天数、宫颈液监测、尿液排卵测试、感觉排卵、使用智能手机生育应用程序和测量基础体温 [BBT])。根据自我报告的怀孕情况,按月经周期测量怀孕时间。我们使用比例概率回归模型估算了受孕率(FR)和 95% 置信区间(CIs),并对年龄、社会经济地位、健康指标、生育史和妇科因素进行了调整:63.3%的参与者在研究开始时使用了生育指标。最常用的是计算天数(46.9%),而测量BBT最少(3.0%)。其他指标的使用率从 17.0% 到 23.6% 不等,其中 69.7% 的人使用了一种以上的指标。与不使用相比,使用任何生育指标都与更高的受孕率相关(调整后 FR 值为 1.14,95% CI 值为 1.08,1.19)。宫颈液监测显示出最强的关联性(aFR 1.46,95% CI 1.03,2.07),其次是尿液排卵测试(aFR 1.35,95% CI 1.16,1.58)和计算天数(aFR 1.18,95% CI 1.09,1.29)。感觉排卵和生育应用程序与受孕率略有关联,而测量 BBT 与受孕率无关。将敏感性分析局限于尝试时间≤2个周期和两个周期的随访,结果显示使用任何指标的aFR为1.21(95% CI为1.13,1.31):在这个丹麦孕前队列中,生育指标的使用与较高的受孕率相关,但因指标类型而异。
The association between the use of fertility indicators and fecundability in a Danish preconception cohort.
Background: The use of fertility indicators to predict ovulation has largely been studied for contraceptive purposes, while less so as fertility-promoting tools.
Objective: To investigate the association between fertility indicators and fecundability in Danish women trying to conceive.
Methods: Web-based preconception cohort study. We analysed data from 11,328 females aged 18-49 years trying to conceive without fertility treatment for ≤6 menstrual cycles, from the Danish SnartGravid.dk and SnartForældre.dk cohorts (2007-2023). Participants reported the use of fertility indicators (counting days since the last menstrual period, cervical fluid monitoring, urinary ovulation testing, feeling ovulation, using a smartphone fertility app and measuring basal body temperature [BBT]). Time to pregnancy was measured in menstrual cycles ascertained by self-reported pregnancy status. We estimated fecundability ratios (FR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using proportional probabilities regression models adjusted for age, socio-economic position, health indicators, reproductive history and gynaecological factors.
Results: Fertility indicators were used by 63.3% of participants at study entry. Counting days was the most common (46.9%), while measuring BBT was the least (3.0%). Other indicators ranged from 17.0% to 23.6%, with 69.7% using more than one indicator. Compared with non-use, use of any fertility indicator was associated with greater fecundability (adjusted FR 1.14, 95% CI 1.08, 1.19). Cervical fluid monitoring showed the strongest association (aFR 1.46, 95% CI 1.03, 2.07), followed by urinary ovulation testing (aFR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16, 1.58) and counting days (aFR 1.18, 95% CI 1.09, 1.29). Feeling ovulation and fertility apps were modestly associated with fecundability, while measuring BBT was not associated. Sensitivity analysis restricting to ≤2 cycles of attempt time and two cycles of follow-up showed an aFR for any indicator use of 1.21 (95% CI 1.13, 1.31).
Conclusion: In this Danish preconception cohort, use of fertility indicators was associated with a higher fecundability, varying by type of indicator.
期刊介绍:
Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology crosses the boundaries between the epidemiologist and the paediatrician, obstetrician or specialist in child health, ensuring that important paediatric and perinatal studies reach those clinicians for whom the results are especially relevant. In addition to original research articles, the Journal also includes commentaries, book reviews and annotations.