Rene Antonio Leiva, Thomas Paul Bouchard, Saman Hasan Abdullah, René Ecochard
Abstract
To study the best possible luteinizing hormone (LH) threshold to predict ovulation within the 24, 48, and 72 h.
Observational study.
Multicenter collaborative study.
A total of 107 women.
Women collected daily first morning urine for hormonal assessment and underwent serial ovarian ultrasound. This is a secondary analysis of 283 cycles.
The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were estimated for varying ranges of LH thresholds. Receiver operating characteristic curves and cost-benefit ratios were used to estimate the best thresholds to predict ovulation.
The best scenario to predict ovulation at random was within 24 h after the first single positive test. The false-positive rate was found to increase as (1) the cycle progressed or (2) two or three consecutive tests were used, or (3) ovulation was predicted within 48 or 72 h. Testing earlier in the cycle increases the predictive value of the test. The ideal thresholds to predict ovulation ranged between 25 and 30 mIU/ml with a PPV (50-60%), NPV (98%), LR+ (20-30), and LR- (0.5). At least, one day with LH ≥25 mIU/ml followed by three negatives (LH <25) occurred before ovulation in 31% of all cycles. When used throughout the cycle and evaluated together, peak-fertility type mucus with a positive LH test ≥25 mIU/ml provides a higher specificity than either mucus or LH testing alone (97-99 vs. 77-95 vs. 91%, respectively).
We identified that beginning LH testing earlier in the cycle (day 7) with a threshold of 25-30 mIU/ml may present the best predictive value for ovulation within 24 h. However, prediction by LH testing alone may be affected negatively by several confounding factors so LH testing alone should not be used to define the end of the fertile window. Complementary markers should be further investigated to predict ovulation and identify the fertile window. The use of the peak cervical mucus along with an LH test may provide a higher specificity and predictive value than either of them alone. We recommend that manufacturers disclose their tests' threshold to the public.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 May 2022.
All research outputs
#5,718,145
of 23,709,010 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#1,931
of 11,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,265
of 441,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#27
of 91 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,709,010 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,411 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,947 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 91 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
