Advertisement

Advances in Contraception

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 97–108 | Cite as

Retrospective Clinical Trial of Contraceptive Effectiveness of the Electronic Fertility Indicator Ladycomp/Babycomp

  • G. Freundl
  • P. Frank-Herrmann
  • E. Godehardt
  • R. Klemm
  • M. Bachhofer
Article

Abstract

The Babycomp/Ladycomp (Valley Electronics Ltd., Eschenlohe, Germany) is an electronic device that combines the temperature method and calendar method for planning and preventing pregnancy by identifying the fertile and infertile phases of the menstrual cycle.

In a retrospective clinical trial, the system was tested as a contraceptive aid. A total of 648 women from Germany and Switzerland have participated: 597 women with 10 275 months of use used the device for contraception. Thirty-three unplanned pregnancies were identified, giving a total pregnancy rate of 3.8 use effectiveness according to the Pearl Index. Six method-related pregnancies occurred, producing a method Pearl Index of 0.7. Calculating the cumulative pregnancy rates by life-table analysis, it was found that, after about one year of exposure, the probability of an unintended pregnancy was 5.3% (0.053), after 2 years it was 6.8% (0.068) and after about 3 years of exposure it was 8.2% (0.082). The mean length of the identified fertile period was 14.3 days with a standard deviation of 4.6 days in all cycles reported. The acceptance of the device by the woman and her partner was good. In fact, 21 of the 33 women who became pregnant would still recommend the device for further use (63.6%).

Keywords

Public Health Standard Deviation Menstrual Cycle Electronic Device Pregnancy Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Diaz M. Gender, sexuality and communication issues that constitute barriers to the use of natural family planning and other fertility awareness-based methods. Adv Contracept. 1997;13: 303–9.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Freundl G. Rhythm and devices. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 1996;1:80.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Freundl G, Frank-Herrmann P, Raith-Paula E. Natürliche Familienplanung. Gynäkologe. 1998;31:398–409..Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flynn AM. Natural family planning and the new technologies. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 1989;1:123–7.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Freundl G, Bremme M, Frank-Herrmann P, Baur S, Godehardt E, Sottong U. The CUE fertility monitor compared to ultrasound and LH peak measurements for fertile time ovulation detection. Adv Contracept. 1996;12:111–21.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martinez AR, Zinaman MJ, Jennings VH, Lamprecht VM. Prediction and detection of the fertile period: the markers. Int J Fertil. 1995;40(3):139–55.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    World Health Organisation. Temporal relationship between indices of the fertile period. Fertil Steril. 1983;39:647–55.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Freundl G, Baur S, Bremme M, Döring GK, Frank-Herrmann P. Ladycomp as an aid in natural family planning. Adv Contracept. 1992;8:184.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Freundl G, Baur S, Bremme M et al. Temperaturcomputer zur Bestimmung der fertilen Zeit im Zyklus der Frau: Babycomp, Bioself 110, Cyclotest D. Fertilität. 1992;8:66–76.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lamprecht V, Trussell J. Natural family planning effectiveness: evaluating published reports. Adv Contracept. 1997;13:155–65.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pearl R. Factors in human fertility and their statistical evaluation. Lancet. 1933;2:607–11.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kaplan EL, Meier P. Non-parametric estimation from incomplete observation. J Am Stat Assoc. 1958;53:457–81.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frank-Herrmann P, Freundl G, Gnoth Ch et al. Natural family planning with and without barrier method use in the fertile phase: efficacy in relation to sexual behaviour-a German prospective study. Adv Contracept. 1997;13:179–89Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Drouin J, Guilbert EE, Desaulniers G. An evaluation of the Bioself 110 electronic fertility Contrace indicator as a contraceptive aid. Contraception. 1994;50(3):229–38.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Flynn A, Pulcrano J, Royston P, Spieler J. An evaluation of the Bioself 110 electronic fertility indicator as a contraceptive aid. Contraception. 1991;44(2):125–39.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ismail M, Arshat H, Pulcrano J, Royston P, Spieler J. An evaluation of the BIOSELF 110 fertility indicator. Contraception. 1989;39(1):53–71.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bremme M, Freundl G, Frank-Herrmann P. Analysis of the computer-thermometer “Cyclotest D” to be used for natural family planning. Adv Contracept. 1992;8:221.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Freundl G, Bonnar J, Flynn AM, Frank-Herrmann P, Kirkman R, Snowden R. Effektivität eines neuen Verhütungscomputers “PERSONA”-Bericht über Testergebnisse in Deutschland. Fortschr Med. 1998;116 Originalien I:25–30Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Raith E, Frank P, Freundl G. Natürliche Familienplanung heute: New York, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 1994:1–243.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gnoth C, Frank-Herrmann P, Freundl G, Kunert J, Godehardt E. Sexual behavior of natural family planning users in Germany and its changes over time. Adv Contracept. 1995;11:173–85Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Freundl
    • 1
  • P. Frank-Herrmann
    • 1
  • E. Godehardt
    • 2
  • R. Klemm
    • 2
  • M. Bachhofer
    • 3
  1. 1.Frauenklinik Staedt. Krankenhaus Düsseldorf-BenrathTeaching Hospital of the H.H.University of DüsseldorfGermany
  2. 2.Biometrical Unit of the Surgical DepartmentH.H.University of DüsseldorfGermany
  3. 3.UffingGermany

Personalised recommendations