Ovarian Monitor Results Found to be Comparable to Laboratory Standards
Fertility Monitors

Richard J. Fehring
Reprint from Current Medical Research
Vol 15, No 1-2, Winter/Spring 2004
Washington, DC
Reproduced with Permission

The Home Ovarian Monitor has been in development for over 10 years primarily under the influence of James Brown from Australia. The Ovarian Monitor is designed to measure urinary assays of estrone glucuronide (E1G) and pregnanediol glucuronide (PdG) as measures of ovarian activity during a woman's menstrual cycle. Researchers from New Zealand, Australia, and Chile, undertook a study to determine the accuracy and reliability of the Ovarian monitor in comparison to those found in a laboratory.1 Approximately 60 women volunteers with a mean age of 34 years, regular ovulatory cycles, who were current users of a method of NFP and who charted their fertile signs were asked to use the Ovarian Monitor for 6 cycles. These volunteers generated close to 360 cycles of data. The researchers then randomly selected 18-19 of these cycles to compare the results with Ovarian Monitor results at the three centers by experts and with the results from a World Health Organization reference laboratory in London.

The researchers essentially compared the initial E1G rise (which indicated the beginning of fertility), the peak levels of E1G (which indicated the peak in fertility and the approximate time of ovulation), and the PdG threshold level (which indicated or confirmed that ovulation occurred). The overall correlation between the Ovarian Monitor E1G results and the laboratory results utilizing radioimmunoassay methods (RIA) was 0.653 (range 0.581-0.949) and the overall correlation between the Ovarian Monitor and the laboratory PdG results was 0.842 (range 0.712 to 0.968). The Ovarian Monitor agreed with the laboratory in determining the day of the E1G rise in 50% of the cycles, but was delayed by up to 3 days in the other 50%. In contrast the day of the peak in E1G and the PdG threshold by the monitor agreed very closely to the laboratory results. Overall, the correlation between the results from the monitor and the laboratory results were better than 0.84 in 80% of the cycles. The researchers concluded that the results of the monitor produced by women in the home setting were comparable to those produced by laboratory procedures. However, the researchers also indicated that the women volunteers needed close supervision to maintain quality control.


When the researchers asked the women volunteers if they would use the Ovarian Monitor as a means of natural family planning they answered that they would prefer to monitor their own symptoms. The average time to conduct the PIG test with the monitor is around 40 minutes and the PdG test about 15 minutes. The monitor also requires timed urines (over a minimum of three hours) and diluting the urine in a large jug. Furthermore, close supervision is required to maintain quality. Therefore, at this time the Ovarian Monitor is viewed as a research tool to improve current methods of NFP and as a possible alternative to more costly laboratory testing. The monitor costs about $220 and each assay tube about 40 cents. (Richard J. Fehring)


1 Blackwell, L.F., srown, J.B., & Vigil, P., et al. Hormonal monitoring of ovarian activity using the Ovariarl Monitor, Part L Validation of home and laboratory results obtained during ovulatory cycles by comparison with radioinununuassay. Steriods. 2003;68:465-476. [Back]