Back

The effect of mobile applications for menstrual cycle or fertility trackers on women's health: protocol for a systematic review

Nomura-Sakata, A. I.; Mogrovejo-Navas, C. I.; Navarro-Grau, A.; Zafra-Tanaka, J. H.

2020-09-27 obstetrics and gynecology
10.1101/2020.09.25.20201251 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundNowadays the use of smartphones and the development of health-related mobile applications has increased worldwide. Menstrual cycle tracking applications (MCTAs) have become especially popular among women because of their practicality in recording menstrual cycles, characteristics of bleeding and prediction of cycle stages. There are various studies regarding the use of MCTAs for different aspects of womens health such as estimating a fertility window for both conception and contraception, help register last menstrual period for calculation of gestational age, record pre-menstrual symptoms, among others. However, effects of MCTAs have not been analyzed in a systematic review. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of mobile applications for menstrual cycle or fertility trackers on womens health. MethodsA systematic review will be conducted, starting with a search in PubMed, CENTRAL and Scopus using search terms related to mobile applications and menstrual or fertility tracking. Only randomized controlled trials will be screened with a sample of child-bearing aged women that use menstrual or fertility tracking mobile applications. Selected studies will be fully analyzed and the results will be recorded on a spread sheet. Study selection and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers independently and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCT will be used for assessment of risk of bias. Discrepancies will be reviewed with a third reviewer. ConclusionCurrently, there is a lack of information on the effects of using MCTAs on womens health. This systematic review aims to provide an analysis on the outcomes of the usage of these applications and evaluate any potential effects. Conflicts of interestAll authors declare to have no conflicts of interest.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.6%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 11%
16.0%
3
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 2%
8.3%
4
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
8.3%
50% of probability mass above
5
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 4%
3.4%
6
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 31%
3.4%
7
Cureus
68 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.9%
8
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.2%
9
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.0%
10
Healthcare
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
11
Journal of Medical Internet Research
87 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
12
JMIR Formative Research
33 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.8%
13
Heliyon
152 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
14
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
128 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
15
International Journal of Medical Informatics
26 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.6%
16
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.6%
17
JMIR Research Protocols
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.6%
18
npj Digital Medicine
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.5%
19
BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.4%
20
BMJ Open Quality
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
21
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.2%
22
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
23
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
24
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
25
Applied Sciences
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.1%
26
Bioengineering
29 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.0%
27
JAMIA Open
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
28
BMC Medical Education
21 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
29
Public Health
36 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
30
Frontiers in Public Health
148 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%