OvulaRing studies & clinical evidence (DOI, PubMed, PDFs)

Last updated: 28 Jan 2026

Here we compile studies, white papers and validations on OvulaRing.

Evidence at a glance

Key takeaways

Best supported: Peer‑reviewed publications show that continuous intravaginal core‑temperature measurement (OvulaRing) can be used for the identification and prediction of the fertile window.
Clinical practice perspective: Comparative work (e.g., with ultrasound/hormones) indicates that continuous temperature monitoring can meaningfully complement established cycle monitoring – especially for a more objective assessment of ovulation timing over longer periods.
Context: Additional publications address chronobiology / temperature rhythmicity and review fertility wearables; these provide methodological context but are not always designed primarily for “fertile window prediction”.

Note: This overview summarizes sources and key statements from abstracts/publications. It is not medical advice.

Further resources

Want to put the studies into context? Here you will find methodology, information for medical professionals and the most important quality criteria.

OvulaRing: Overview of scientific publications

Are you looking for scientific sources on OvulaRing? Here you will find all the key publications – clearly sorted, with brief descriptions and direct links (DOI, PubMed, PDF).

Note: This list is an overview of sources, not medical advice.

1) Peer-reviewed studies (core evidence)

Nolte J et al. (2026)
Optimizing basal body temperature measurement for cycle diagnostics: a comparison of different methods in female

Frequently asked questions about the evidence for OvulaRing

Here we answer the most common questions about the scientific evidence for OvulaRing – based on the most important publications.

Which study/publication provides the strongest evidence for OvulaRing?

The strongest direct evidence for OvulaRing (in the sense of “detecting and predicting the fertile window / ovulation”) comes from the peer‑reviewed study by Regidor et al. in Gynecological Endocrinology. It is the central publication because it explicitly addresses the determination of the fertile window using a vaginal biosensor and an algorithm, and evaluated a larger number of cycles.

What exactly did the OvulaRing studies evaluate?

The studies essentially look at two things:
1) Fertile window & ovulation timing: Regidor et al. examine whether an algorithm based on continuously measured core body temperature (intravaginal) can identify and/or predict the fertile window.

2) Diagnostics in cycle/ovulation disorders: Goeckenjan et al. compare continuous temperature monitoring (vaginal sensor) with standard cycle monitoring (e.g., ultrasound/hormones) and discuss how it can be used in clinical practice.

In addition, there is research that focuses less on “fertility” as a goal and more on the measurement method itself (chronobiology / long‑term temperature trajectories).

What conclusions do the OvulaRing studies come to?

Regidor et al. report (according to the abstract) that the system evaluation achieves a retrospective “accuracy” of 99.11% for detecting ovulation (based on a stated software validation error of 0.89%) and that, prospectively, an accuracy of 88.8% is reported for a window “3 days before ovulation, day of ovulation, 3 days after ovulation”. In addition, the paper describes how the algorithm derives the fertile window from continuous intravaginal core‑temperature measurement.

How well can OvulaRing determine the fertile days?

The most frequently cited metric comes from the study by Regidor et al.:
It reports a prospective accuracy of 88.8% for a 7‑day window around the day of ovulation
(3 days before, day of ovulation, 3 days after).

Important for a fair interpretation: “accuracy” here means how well the algorithm matches the ovulation/window reference point defined in the study design – it is not automatically the same as “contraceptive safety” (e.g., Pearl Index from large, independent real‑world studies).

Where else is OvulaRing used in research?

OvulaRing appears in research mainly in three contexts:

Chronobiology / core‑temperature rhythmicity:
Long‑term measurements of core temperature in everyday life (e.g., to analyze circadian patterns).

Digital health & wearables (reviews):
Systematic reviews on fertility wearables mention intravaginal temperature devices as a device class.

UX/HCI research:
Studies such as “Communicating Uncertainty in Fertility Prognosis” examine how predictions and uncertainty are presented understandably – i.e., less “whether it is correct” and more “how users interpret the statement”.