RESEARCH Question: To characterize mobile fertility tracking applications (apps) to determine the use of such apps for women trying to conceive by identifying the fertile window.
Design
An exploratory cross-sectional audit study was conducted of fertility tracking applications. Ninety out of a possible total 200 apps were included for full review. The main outcome measures were the underlying app method for predicting ovulation, the fertile window, or both, price to download and use the app, disclaimers and cautions, information and features provided and tracked, and app marketing strategies.
Results
All the apps except one monitored the women's menstrual cycle dates. Most apps only tracked menstrual cycle dates (n = 49 [54.4%]). The remainder tracked at least one fertility-based awareness method (basal body temperature, cervical mucus, LH) (n = 41 [45.6%]). Twenty-five apps measured dates, basal body temperature, LH and cervical mucus (27.8%). Seventy-six per cent of apps were free to download with free apps having more desirable features, tracking more measures and having more and better quality educational insights than paid apps. Seventy per cent of apps were classified as feminine apps, 41% of which were pink in colour.
Conclusions
Mobile fertility tracking apps are heterogenous in their underlying methods of predicting fertile days, the price to obtain full app functionality, and in content and design. Unreliable calendar apps remain the most commonly available fertility apps on the market. The unregulated nature of fertility apps is a concern that could be addressed by app regulating bodies. The possible benefit of using fertility apps to reduce time to pregnancy needs to be evaluated.
fertility tracking apps fertile window prediction accuracy, mobile application ovulation prediction trying to conceive, fertility awareness app basal body temperature cervical mucus LH, calendar-based fertility apps reliability regulation, cross-sectional audit fertility tracking applications, smartphone apps time to pregnancy conception, fertility app features educational content quality, digital health fertility awareness methods comparison, unregulated fertility apps consumer health concerns, menstrual cycle tracking app ovulation detection methods
PMID 34756400 34756400 DOI 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.09.005 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.09.005
Cite this article
Ali, R., Gurtin, Z., & Harper, J. (2020). Do fertility tracking applications offer women useful information about their fertile window?. Reproductive biomedicine online, 42(1), S1472-6483(20)30509-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.09.005
Ali R, Gurtin Z, Harper J. Do fertility tracking applications offer women useful information about their fertile window?. Reprod Biomed Online. 2020;42(1):S1472-6483(20)30509-5. doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.09.005
Ali, Roshonara, et al. "Do fertility tracking applications offer women useful information about their fertile window?." Reproductive biomedicine online, vol. 42, no. 1, 2020, pp. S1472-6483(20)30509-5.
Related articles
Fertility AwarenessApp ComparisonFertile Window IdentificationBBT and Cervical Mucus
The Natural Cycles app employs daily basal body temperature to define the fertile window via a proprietary algorithm and is clinically established effective in preventing pregnancy. We sought to (1) compare the app-defined fertile window of Natural Cycles to that of CycleProGo, an app that uses BBT and cervical mucus to define the fertile window and (2) compare the app-defined fertile windows to the estimated physiologic fertile window. Daily BBT were entered into Natural Cycles from 20 randomly selected regularly cycling women with at least 12 complete cycles from the CycleProGo database. The proportion of cycles with equivalent (±1 cycle day) fertile-window starts and fertile-window ends was determined. The app-defined fertile windows were then compared to the estimated physiologic fertile window using Peak mucus to estimate ovulation. Fifty seven percent of cycles (136/238) had equivalent fertile-window starts and 36% (72/181) had equivalent fertile-window end days. The mean overall fertile-window length from Natural Cycles was 12.8 days compared to 15.1 days for CycleProGo (p < 0.001). The Natural Cycles algorithm declared 12% to 30% of cycles with a fertile-window start and 13% to 38% of cycles with a fertile-window end within the estimated physiologic fertile window. The CycleProGo algorithm declared 4% to 14% of cycles with a fertile-window start and no cycles with a fertile-window end within the estimated physiologic fertile window. Natural Cycles designated a higher proportion of cycles days as infertile within the estimated physiologic fertile window than CycleProGo.
Use of cervical mucus in addition to BBT may improve the accuracy of identifying the fertile window. Additional studies with other markers of ovulation and the fertile window would give additional insight into the clinical implications of app-defined fertile window differences.
Frank-Herrmann P et al., 2017·Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care
Sir,Currently, a variety of start-up companies are developing mobile phone apps to track the menstrual cycle and the fertile window, for the use of women who are trying to conceive or trying to avo...
Physicians who counsel women for preconception concerns are in an excellent position to give advice to couples regarding the optimal timing of intercourse to achieve pregnancy. The currently available evidence suggests that methods that prospectively identify the window of fertility are likely to be more effective for optimally timing intercourse than calendar calculations or basal body temperature. There are several promising methods with good scientific bases to identify the fertile window prospectively. These include fertility charting of vaginal discharge and a commercially available fertility monitor. These methods identify the occurrence of ovulation clinically and also identify a longer window of fertility than urinary luteinizing hormone kits. Prospectively identifying the full window of fertility may lead to higher rates of conception. Proper information given early in the course of trying to achieve pregnancy is likely to reduce time to conception for many couples, and also to reduce unnecessary intervention and cost.
Reimão Miller KA et al., 2026·Reproductive biomedicine online
This review explores whether the clomiphene citrate stair-step protocol (SSP) for ovulation induction in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) outperforms the traditional protocol. The following PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE and Google Scholar from inception to 15 June 2025, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and with PROSPERO registration (CRD420251050294). Of 847 screened records, five randomized controlled trials were included (n = 520: n = 255; n = 265). Analyses were conducted in Review Manager 5.4 using random-effects models. Risk ratios, mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed with I², risk of bias with RoB2, certainty with GRADE and robustness with leave-one-out sensitivity analysis. The SSP increased ovulation rates compared with the traditional protocol (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.49; five randomized controlled trials [RCTs], n = 520, I² = 0%). Clinical pregnancy also favoured SSP (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.05; four RCTs, n = 460; I² = 0%), although this result was largely driven by one study. The SSP shortened treatment duration (mean difference -32.59 days, 95% CI -38.66 to -26.52 days; three RCTs, n = 320, I² = 83%). Endometrial thickness was similar (mean difference 0.32 mm, 95% CI -0.95 to 1.59 mm; four RCTs, n = 460, I² = 91%). SSP improves ovulation rate and shortens treatment without affecting endometrial thickness and may increase clinical pregnancy rates.