Measurement of LH in saliva; a new approach to ovulation detection

Abstract

In recent years so-called natural family planning (NFP) methods, based on different types of self-observation of the woman to detect the fertile and infertile periods of her menstrual cycle, have received increased attention (see Reference 24). For the individual couple, however, it is difficult to obtain precise information or instruction on the use of NFP methods—for example, the symptothermal method (STM) or combined basal body temperature (BBT)—from the medical profession. A priori rejection of NFP is common, owing largely to the fact that there are only few and contradictory reports in the literature and personal or hearsay information on ‘failures’. Indeed, the relative paucity of large-scale comprehensive studies on the biological foundations of NFP is striking; opinions and convictions seem to prevail. This situation is easily explained by the inherent difficulties of such studies: daily sampling of blood or urine specimen, extensive and expensive laboratory procedures, long-term involvement of reliable volunteers, the physiological variations of the cycle, etc., practically prohibit the accumulation of extensive statistical data, even though basic principles are well established, as reviewed recently (see, e. g., References S, 7, 11, 12, 14, 17, 22, 28) (including the effectiveness of NFP methods ^15,19).