A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of a digital ovulation test with three popular line ovulation tests to investigate user accuracy and certainty. | LitMetric

Comparison of a digital ovulation test with three popular line ovulation tests to investigate user accuracy and certainty.

Expert Opin Med Diagn

SPD Development Company Limited, Priory Business Park, Bedford, MK44 3UP , UK +44 0 1234 835 486 ; +44 0 1234 835 006 ;

Published: November 2011

Objectives: To determine the accuracy and certainty with which volunteers interpreted results of a digital ovulation test, Clearblue digital ovulation test (CB-DOT), compared with three home use non-digital visual ovulation tests: Clearblue ovulation test (CB-OT), First Response (FR) and Answer (AN).

Methods: A total of 72 female volunteers aged 18 - 45 years interpreted test results from each of the four ovulation tests to determine the day of the luteinising hormone surge in 40 individual menstrual cycles. We used urine previously collected from 25 volunteers. The accuracy with which volunteers interpreted the test results was calculated by comparing their results with results obtained by trained technicians using a blinded test regime. For each of the four tests, volunteers were also asked to rate seven attributes of certainty and eight attributes of preference. The primary objective was to compare the accuracy with which volunteers read results from CB-DOT when compared to three visual-based line ovulation tests.

Results: A significantly higher percentage of volunteers/technicians agreed on the interpretation of the results from CB-DOT (97.3%) than for CB-OT (83.5%; p = 0.0153), AN (73%; p = 0.0011) or FR (64.3%; p = 0.0001). CB-DOT was also found to have significantly better Likert scores than CB-OT, FR and AN for all seven attributes of certainty and was the test that 97.2% of volunteers preferred.

Conclusions: Women can misread the results of line ovulation tests. Over 97% of volunteers correctly read the result of CB-DOT. CB-DOT was also the test that women read with most certainty and the test that most users preferred.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/17530059.2011.617737DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

ovulation test
16
ovulation tests
16
digital ovulation
12
test
10
ovulation
9
accuracy certainty
8
volunteers
8
volunteers interpreted
8
cb-dot compared
8
compared three
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!