Skip to content

A comparison of the symptothermal cycle method using intravaginal temperature measurement versus conventional temperature measurement - a retrospective cohort study

A comparison of the symptothermal cycle method using intravaginal temperature measurement versus conventional temperature measurement - a retrospective cohort study

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
DRKS
Registry ID
DRKS00031801
Enrollment
35
Registered
2023-08-15
Start date
2022-03-25
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-04-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Evaluation of the menstrual cycle based on the symptothermal method

Interventions

Group 1: Automated cycle evaluation of 25 female trackle users based on the cycle parameters collected by trackle through the trackle algorithm: determination of the time of ovulation and thus the fer

Sponsors

trackle GmbH
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
Female
Age
18 Years to 40 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Cycle length between 24 and 38 days before study kick-off

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: current therapy with contraceptives or ovarian stimulation with clomiphene, letrozole or follicle stimulating hormone and the unwillingness to provide electronic informed consent

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
The main aim of the study is to determine whether the trackle algorithm gives exactly the same results as the standardized, manual analysis for determining the fertile days using the principles of the symptothermal method. With the help of the "trackle" vaginal sensor and the user's information about her cervical mucus symptoms over the duration of 12 completed cycles, the time of ovulation is defined - once by the trackle algorithm, i.e. automatic and standardized, and once by two independent and experienced researchers using the symptothermal method.

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
The results of the evaluation carried out by the trackle not only deliver the same results as the manual evaluation - the evaluation is also just as correct as the manual version of trained users and correctly depicts the corresponding physiological states in each cycle examined.

Countries

Austria, Germany

Contacts

Public ContactJohannes Ott

Medical University of Vienna

Johannes.ott@meduniwien.ac.at+43 140400 28130

Outcome results

None listed

Source: DRKS (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026