Should home-based ovulation predictor kits be offered as an additional approach for fertility management for women and couples desiring pregnancy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: To inform the WHO Guideline on self-care interventions, we conducted a systematic review of the impact of ovulation predictor kits (OPKs) on time-to-pregnancy, pregnancy, live birth, stress/anxiety, social harms/adverse events and values/preferences. METHODS: Included studies had to compare women desiring pregnancy who managed their fertility with and without OPKs, measure an outcome of interest and be published in a peer-reviewed journal. We searched for studies on PubMed, CINAHL, LILACS and EMBASE through November 2018. We assessed risk of bias assessed using the Cochrane tool for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the Evidence Project tool for observational studies, and conducted meta-analysis using random effects models to generate pooled estimates of relative risk (RR). RESULTS: Four studies (three RCTs and one observational study) including 1487 participants, all in high-income countries, were included. Quality of evidence was low. Two RCTs found no difference in time-to-pregnancy. All studies reported pregnancy rate, with mixed results: one RCT from the 1990s among couples with unexplained or male-factor infertility found no difference in clinical pregnancy rate (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.32); two more recent RCTs found higher self-reported pregnancy rates among OPK users (pooled RR: 1.40, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80). A small observational study found higher rates of pregnancy with lab testing versus OPKs among women using donor insemination services. One RCT found no increase in stress/anxiety after two menstrual cycles using OPKs, besides a decline in positive affect. No studies measured live birth or social harms/adverse events. Six studies presented end-users' values/preferences, with almost all women reporting feeling satisfied, comfortable and confident using OPKs. CONCLUSION: A small evidence base, from high-income countries and with high risk of bias, suggests that home-based use of OPKs may improve fertility management when attempting to become pregnant with no meaningful increase in stress/anxiety and with high user acceptability. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO registration number CRD42019119402.

Corrigendum: Urinary Luteinizing Hormone Tests: Which Concentration Threshold Best Predicts Ovulation?

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00320.].

Urinary Luteinizing Hormone Tests: Which Concentration Threshold Best Predicts Ovulation?

OBJECTIVE: To study the best possible luteinizing hormone (LH) threshold to predict ovulation within the 24, 48, and 72 h. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Multicenter collaborative study. PATIENTS: A total of 107 women. INTERVENTIONS: Women collected daily first morning urine for hormonal assessment and underwent serial ovarian ultrasound. This is a secondary analysis of 283 cycles. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were estimated for varying ranges of LH thresholds. Receiver operating characteristic curves and cost-benefit ratios were used to estimate the best thresholds to predict ovulation. RESULTS: The best scenario to predict ovulation at random was within 24 h after the first single positive test. The false-positive rate was found to increase as (1) the cycle progressed or (2) two or three consecutive tests were used, or (3) ovulation was predicted within 48 or 72 h. Testing earlier in the cycle increases the predictive value of the test. The ideal thresholds to predict ovulation ranged between 25 and 30 mIU/ml with a PPV (50-60%), NPV (98%), LR+ (20-30), and LR- (0.5). At least, one day with LH ≥25 mIU/ml followed by three negatives (LH <25) occurred before ovulation in 31% of all cycles. When used throughout the cycle and evaluated together, peak-fertility type mucus with a positive LH test ≥25 mIU/ml provides a higher specificity than either mucus or LH testing alone (97-99 vs. 77-95 vs. 91%, respectively). CONCLUSION: We identified that beginning LH testing earlier in the cycle (day 7) with a threshold of 25-30 mIU/ml may present the best predictive value for ovulation within 24 h. However, prediction by LH testing alone may be affected negatively by several confounding factors so LH testing alone should not be used to define the end of the fertile window. Complementary markers should be further investigated to predict ovulation and identify the fertile window. The use of the peak cervical mucus along with an LH test may provide a higher specificity and predictive value than either of them alone. We recommend that manufacturers disclose their tests' threshold to the public.