↓ Skip to main content

Published analysis of contraceptive effectiveness of Daysy and DaysyView app is fatally flawed

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 1,380)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
14 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
300 tweeters
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Published analysis of contraceptive effectiveness of Daysy and DaysyView app is fatally flawed
Published in
Reproductive Health, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12978-018-0560-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chelsea B. Polis

Abstract

In March 2018, Dr. Martin C. Koch and colleagues published an analysis purporting to measure the effectiveness of the Daysy device and DaysyView app for the prevention of unintended pregnancy. Unfortunately, the analysis was flawed in multiple ways which render the estimates unreliable. Unreliable estimates of contraceptive effectiveness can endanger public health. This commentary details multiple concerns pertaining to the collection and analysis of data in Koch et al. 2018. A key concern pertains to the inappropriate exclusion of all women with fewer than 13 cycles of use from the Pearl Index calculations, which has no basis in standard effectiveness calculations. Multiple additional methodological concerns, as well as prior attempts to directly convey concerns to the manufacturer regarding marketing materials based on prior inaccurate analyses, are also discussed. The Koch et al. 2018 publication produced unreliable estimates of contraceptive effectiveness for the Daysy device and DaysyView app, which are likely substantially higher than the actual contraceptive effectiveness of the device and app. Those estimates are being used in marketing materials which may inappropriately inflate consumer confidence and leave consumers more vulnerable than expected to the risk of unintended pregnancy. Prior attempts to directly convey concerns to the manufacturer of this device were unsuccessful in preventing publication of subsequent inaccurate analyses. To protect public health, concerns with this analysis should be documented in the published literature, the Koch et al. 2018 analysis should be retracted, and marketing materials on contraceptive effectiveness should be subjected to appropriate oversight.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 300 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 19%
Other 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 12 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Unspecified 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 16 33%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 338. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 August 2022.
All research outputs
#75,382
of 22,111,096 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#7
of 1,380 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,920
of 300,017 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,111,096 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,380 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 300,017 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them