Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Zyklus-Apps zur Verhütung – sicher oder Gesellschaftsspiel?

Cycle apps to avoid pregnancy—effective means or a game?

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Gynäkologe Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Die vorliegende Arbeit gibt eine Übersicht über derzeit erhältliche Zyklus-Apps, die das fertile Fenster im weiblichen Zyklus anzeigen. Prognose-Apps, die aus Daten früherer Zyklen (Zykluslängen oder frühere Temperaturanstiege) das fertile Fenster vorhersagen, sind als unbrauchbar zu verwerfen. Eine weitgehend sichere Empfängnisverhütung ist aktuell nur mit evidenzbasierten Varianten der symptothermalen Methode möglich (s. Empfehlungen der Sektion Natürliche Fertilität der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Gynäkologische Endokrinologie und Fertilitätsmedizin [DGGEF]). Entsprechend programmierte Apps benötigen aber auch hier unabhängige Studien nach wissenschaftlichen Kriterien. Apps, die mit Messsystemen verbunden sind, die Hormone oder neue Parameter messen, haben die Erwartungen bisher nicht erfüllt: Bisher wurde kein Parameter gefunden, der die notwendige Genauigkeit aufweist. Die FDA(Food and Drug Administration)-Zulassung der Prognose-App Natural Cycles ist wissenschaftlich nicht nachvollziehbar.

Abstract

This paper gives an overview of currently available cycle apps which indicate the fertile window of the menstrual cycle. Forecast apps, i. e., apps predicting the fertile window based on data of previous cycles (cycle lengths, previous temperature rises) are useless for contraception. Actually, highly effective family planning still needs evidence-based variations of the symptothermal method (see guidelines of the Section Natural Fertility of the German Society of Gynecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine, DGGEF). However, corresponding apps need effectiveness studies according to scientific criteria as well. Apps which are associated with measuring systems (hormones in urine or saliva or new parameters like pulse rate) have not yet met the expectations because no parameter with the necessary accuracy has been found. The US Federal Drug Administration approval of the forecast app Natural Cycles is scientifically not understandable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Arbeitsgruppe NFP (2018) Natürlich und sicher. Das Praxisbuch. Trias, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  2. Behre H, Kuhlage J, Gassner C, Sonntag B, Schem C, Schneider HP et al (2000) Prediction of ovulation by urinary hormone measurements with the home use ClearPlan Fertility Monitor: comparison with transvaginal ultrasound scans and serum hormone measurements. Hum Reprod 15:2478–2482

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Berensmann M, Gratzfeld M (2018) Anforderungen für die CE-Kennzeichnung von Apps und Wearables. Bundesgesundheitsblatt 61:314–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-018-2694-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Blackwell LF, Vigil P, Gross B, D’Arcangues C, Cooke DG, Brown JB (2012) Monitoring of ovarian activity by measurement of urinary excretion rates of estroneglucuronide and pregnanediolglucuronide using the Ovarian Monitor, Part II: reliability of home testing. Hum Reprod 27:550–557

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Direito A, Bailly S, Mariane A, Ecochard R (2013) Relationship between the luteinizing hormone surge and other characteristics of the menstrual cycle in normally ovulating women. Fertil Steril 99:279–285

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Duane M, Contreras A, Jensen ET, White A (2016) The performance of fertility awareness-based method apps marketed to avoid pregnancy. J Am Board Fam Med 29:508–511. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2016.04.160022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ecochard R, Duterque O, Leiva R, Bouchard T, Vigil P (2015) Self-identification of the clinical fertile window and the ovulation period. Fertil Steril 103:1319–1325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Frank-Herrmann P, Stanford JB, Freundl G (2017) Fertility awareness-based mobile application. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2017.1362691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Frank-Herrmann P, Baur S, Freundl G, Gnoth C, Rabe T, Strowitzki T (2015) Natürliche Familienplanung – aktueller Stand. Gynäkologe 9:657–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Freis A, Freundl-Schütt T, Wallwiener LM, Baur S, Strowitzki T, Freundl G, Frank-Herrmann P (2018) Plausibility of menstrual cycle apps claiming to support conception. Front Public Health 3:98. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00098

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Freundl G, Godehardt E, Kern PA, Frank-Herrmann P, Koubenec HJ, Gnoth C (2003) Estimated maximum failure rates of cycle monitors using daily conception probabilities in the menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod 18:2628–2633

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Freundl G, Frank-Herrmann P, Freundl-Schütt T, Görner K, Strowitzki T, Wallwiener LM, Gnoth C (2017) Fertilitäts- und Zyklus-Apps im Netz. Frauenarzt 58:378–381

    Google Scholar 

  13. Freundl G, Fehring RJ, Frank-Herrmann P, Gnoth C (2018) Study of contraceptive mobile app fails to provide convincing findings. J Contracept (accepted for publication)

  14. Jennings VH, Haile LT, Simmons RG, Fultz HM, Shattuck D (2018) Estimating six cycle efficacy of the DOT app for pregnancy prevention. Contraception. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2018.10.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Johnson S, Marriott L, Zinaman M (2018) Can apps and calendar methods predict ovulation with accuracy? Curr Med Res Opin. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2018.1475348

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Koch MC, Lermann J, van de Roemer N, Renner SK, Burghaus S, Hackl J, Dittrich R, Kehl S, Oppelt PG, Hildebrandt T, Hack CC, Pöhls UG, Renner SP, Thiel FC (2019) Improving usability and pregnancy rates of a fertility monitor by an additional mobile application: results of a retrospective efficacy study of Daysy and DaysyView app. Reprod Health 2:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-018-0479-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Papaioannou S, Al Wattar BH, Milnes RC, Knowles TG (2013) Quality index assessment of vaginal temperature based fertility prediction and comparison with luteinising hormone testing, ultrasound folliculometry and other home cycle monitors. Fertil Steril 100(Suppl):326–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.947

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Park SJ, Goldsmith LT, Skurnick JH, Wojtczuk A, Weiss G (2007) Characteristics of the urinary luteinizing hormone surge in young ovulatory women. Fertil Steril 88:684–690

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Polis CB (2018) Published analysis of contraceptive effectiveness of Daysy and DaysyView app is fatally flawed. Reprod Health 15:113. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-018-0560-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Raith-Paula E, Frank-Herrmann P, Freundl G, Strowitzki T (2012) Natürliche Familienplanung heute. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  21. Regidor PA, Kaczmarczyk M, Schiweck E, Goeckenjan-Festag M, Alexander H (2018) Identification and prediction of the fertile window with a new web-based medical device using a vaginal biosensor for measuring the circadian and circamensual core body temperature. Gynecol Endocrinol 34:256–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2017.1390737

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Roos J, Johnson S, Weddell S, Godehardt E, Schiffner J, Freundl G, Gnoth C (2015) Monitoring the menstrual cycle: comparison of urinary and serum reproductive hormones referenced to true ovulation. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 20:438–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Scherwitzl EB, Gemzell Danielsson K, Sellberg JA, Scherwitzl R (2016) Fertility awareness-based mobile application for contraception. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 21:234–241. https://doi.org/10.3109/13625187.2016.1154143

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Scherwitzl EB, Lundberg O, Kopp Kallner H, Gemzell Danielssonc K, Trussell J, Scherwitzl R (2017) Perfect-use and typical-use Pearl Index of a contraceptive mobile app. Contraception 96:420–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2017.08.014

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Schimmoeller N, Creinin MD (2018) More clarity needed for contraceptive mobile app Pearl Index calculations. J Contracept 97:456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2018.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sektion Natürliche Fertilität (2012) Empfängnisverhütung bei der Frau: Natürliche Methoden. In: Rabe T (Hrsg) Seminar in Gynäkologischer Endokrinologie. Thomas Rabe, Heidelberg. ISBN 978-3000390777

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shilaih M, Clerck V, Falco L, Kübler F, Leeners B (2017) Pulse rate measurement during sleep using wearable sensors, and its correlation with the menstrual cycle phases, a prospective observational study. Sci Rep 7:1294. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01433-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Shilaih M, Goodale BM, Falco L, Kübler F, De Clerck V, Leeners B (2017) Modern fertility awareness methods: wrist wearables capture the changes of temperature associated with the menstrual cycle. Biosci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1042/BSR20171279

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gynäkologische Endokrinologie und Fertilitätsstörungen, Universitätsfrauenklinik, Im Neuenheimer Feld 440, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland

    Petra Frank-Herrmann, Alexander Freis & Thomas Strowitzki

  2. UniKid, Universitätsfrauenklinik, Düsseldorf, Deutschland

    Tanja Freundl-Schütt

  3. Universitätsfrauenklinik, München, Deutschland

    Lisa-Maria Wallwiener

  4. Sektion Natürliche Fertilität, DGGEF, Bammental, Deutschland

    Siegfried Baur & Günter Freundl

  5. MFM Deutschland e. V., München, Deutschland

    Elisabeth Raith-Paula

Authors
  1. Petra Frank-Herrmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexander Freis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tanja Freundl-Schütt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lisa-Maria Wallwiener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Siegfried Baur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Günter Freundl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Elisabeth Raith-Paula
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Thomas Strowitzki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petra Frank-Herrmann.

Ethics declarations

Interessenkonflikt

P. Frank-Herrmann, A. Freis, T. Freundl-Schütt, L.-M. Wallwiener, S. Baur, G. Freundl, E. Raith-Paula und T. Strowitzki geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Dieser Beitrag beinhaltet keine von den Autoren durchgeführten Studien an Menschen oder Tieren.

Additional information

Redaktion

T. Strowitzki, Heidelberg

B. Sonntag, Hamburg

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frank-Herrmann, P., Freis, A., Freundl-Schütt, T. et al. Zyklus-Apps zur Verhütung – sicher oder Gesellschaftsspiel?. Gynäkologe 52, 90–97 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-018-4358-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00129-018-4358-6

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation