A fertility awareness method that shows you how your own fertility may be changing could help you to make better decisions about your childbearing.
A recent study found that people who regularly monitor their fertility have better odds of having healthy children.
But some scientists say they have a difficult time understanding the difference between fertility awareness and other methods of fertility monitoring, such as the ultrasound or blood tests.
So, they wanted to see if the ultrasound method was more effective than the other two methods.
Dr. Mariana Gomes-Gonzalez, a professor of reproductive medicine at New York University, and her colleagues analyzed data from more than 8,000 women who underwent two fertility awareness measures in their clinics.
In addition to tracking their cycles, they also analyzed their cervical and ovulatory cycles, their fertility and their menstrual cycle.
The researchers compared the results from the ultrasound and the blood tests, looking at the effect that each had on each women’s reproductive health.
They found that the ultrasound had a 50 percent greater effect on women’s fertility, and that the blood test had a 60 percent greater impact on women and their fertility.
In addition, women who had a high-pitched buzzing noise at the start of their menstrual cycles had a 25 percent greater chance of having a healthy baby, and women with low-pitch buzzing noise had a 40 percent greater likelihood of having an unhealthy baby.
The ultrasound and blood tests weren’t without their problems, however.
One researcher found that women who were using the ultrasound tended to have smaller babies, but other researchers found that, when looking at women with normal cycles, there was no significant difference in their babies born.
The findings also didn’t apply to men, who had no differences in their pregnancies and babies.
The study, which was published in the journal PLOS ONE, found that while the ultrasound was more accurate, the blood testing was more reliable.
“It’s interesting to see a difference in outcomes when women use ultrasound, and ultrasound is not as effective,” said Dr. Gomes, who is also an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Minnesota.
“And we have not really seen any research in the literature that says that the way women use the ultrasound is as accurate as the blood-based tests.”
Another study also found that ultrasound doesn’t make much of a difference when it comes to predicting a baby’s size, and there’s not enough data to say whether it makes any difference when the baby is born.
Gomes-Giustina said it was important to compare ultrasound and other fertility-monitoring measures because they have similar effectiveness and are similar to each other.
The new research comes after researchers from Harvard and the University at Buffalo showed that the birth of a healthy fetus can be significantly affected by the time of the day women were ovulating.
The new study also looked at how well the ultrasound helped women predict their menstrual periods.
“When it comes time to make a pregnancy decision, it is important to know that the prognosis is going to be better if we’re not ovulating,” said Gomes.
“So, if you’re not having your period, or you’re ovulating but not ovulation, it could have a big impact on your pregnancy.”
If you have questions about fertility, check out the experts’ tips for making the most of the fertility calendar.
For more health news, please visit msnbc.com/health.