Document Type
Article
Language
eng
Format of Original
5 p.
Publication Date
10-2002
Publisher
Elsevier
Source Publication
Contraception
Source ISSN
0010-7824
Original Item ID
doi: 10.1016/S0010-7824(02)00355-4
Abstract
The (PD) peak day of cervical mucus is an important biologic marker for the self-determination of the optimal time of fertility in a woman’s menstrual cycle. The purpose of this article is to provide evidence (literature and empiric) for the accuracy of the PD of cervical mucus as a biologic marker of peak fertility and the estimated day of ovulation. An analysis of data from four published studies that compared the self-determination of the PD of cervical mucus with the urinary luteinizing hormone (LH) surge was conducted. The four studies yielded 108 menstrual cycle charts from 53 women participants. The 108 cycles ranged in length from 22 to 75 days (mean 29.4 SD 6.0). Ninety-three of the 108 cycles had both an identified PD and LH surge. Data charts showed that 97.8% of the PD fell within ±4 days of the estimated day of ovulation. Use of a standardized mucus cycle scoring system indicated that the peak in cervical mucus ratings was highest on the day of the LH surge. Self-determination of the PD of cervical mucus is a very accurate means of determining peak fertility and a fairly accurate means of determining the day of ovulation and the beginning of the end of the fertile time.
Recommended Citation
Fehring, Richard, "Accuracy of the Peak Day of Cervical Mucus as a Biological Marker of Fertility" (2002). College of Nursing Faculty Research and Publications. 33.
https://epublications.marquette.edu/nursing_fac/33
Comments
Accepted version. Contraception, Vol. 66, No. 4 (October 2002): 231-235. DOI. © 2002 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 66, ISSUE 4, October 2002. DOI.