A Comparison of the Fertile Phase As Determined by the Clearplan Easy Fertility Monitor™ and Self-Assessment of Cervical Mucus
Format of Original
Original Item ID
The purpose of this study was to compare the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle as determined by the Clearplan Easy Fertility Monitor (CPEFM) with self-monitoring of cervical mucus. One-hundred women (mean age = 29.4 years) observed their cervical mucus and monitored their urine for estrogen and luteinizing hormone metabolites with the CPEFM on a daily basis for 2–6 cycles and generated 378 cycles of data; of these, 347 (92%) had a CPEFM peak. The beginning of the fertile window was, on average, day 11.8 (SD = 3.4) by the monitor and day 9.9 (SD = 3.0) by cervical mucus (r = 0.43, p < 0.001). The average first day of peak fertility by the monitor was 16.5 (SD = 3.6) and by cervical mucus 16.3 (SD = 3.7) (r = 0.85, p < 0.001). The mean length of the fertile phase by the monitor was 7.7 days (SD = 3.1) and by cervical mucus 10.9 days (SD = 3.7) (t = 12.7, p < 0.001). The peak in fertility as determined by the monitor and by self-assessment of cervical mucus is similar but the monitor tends to underestimate and self-assessment of cervical mucus tends to overestimate the actual fertile phase.
Fehring, Richard; Raviele, Kathleen; and Schneider, Mary, "A Comparison of the Fertile Phase As Determined by the Clearplan Easy Fertility Monitor™ and Self-Assessment of Cervical Mucus" (2004). College of Nursing Faculty Research and Publications. 32.
Accepted version. Contraception, Vol. 69, No. 1 (January 2004): 9-14. DOI. © 2004 Elsevier. Used with permission.
NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Contraception. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Contraception, VOL 69, ISSUE 1, January 2004. DOI.