Agreement Between the 2- and 3-Step Methods for Identifying Subtle Menstrual Disturbances

Abstract

Recent methodological recommendations suggest the use of the “3-step method,” consisting of calendar-based counting, urinary ovulation testing, and serum blood sampling, for the identification of subtle menstrual disturbances (SMDs). However, the use of the 3-step method is not always feasible, so a less demanding combination of calendar-based counting and urinary ovulation testing, that is, the 2-step method, may be a viable alternative. <p>

<p>Purpose: To investigate the agreement between the 2- and 3-step methods for the detection of SMDs. <p>

<p>Methods: Menstrual cycles (MCs, 98) of 59 athletes were assessed using the 2- and 3-step methods. Regular-length MCs (ie, ≥21 and ≤35 d) were classified as either having no SMD (luteal phase length ≥10 d, midluteal progesterone concentration ≥16 nmol·L−1, and being ovulatory) or having an SMD (eg, short luteal phase [<10 d], inadequate luteal phase [midluteal progesterone concentration <16 nmol·L−1], or being anovulatory). Method agreement was assessed using the McNemar test and Cohen kappa (κ). <p>

<p>Results: Substantial agreement was observed between methods (κ = .72; 95% CI, .53–.91), but the 2-step method did not detect all MCs with an SMD, resulting in evidence of systematic bias (χ2 = 5.14; P = .023). The 2-step method detected 61.1% of MCs that had an SMD ([51.4, 70.8]), as verified using the 3-step method, and correctly identified 100% of MCs without an SMD. <p>

<p>Conclusions: MCs classified as being disturbed using the 2-step method could be considered valid evidence of SMDs. However, MCs classified without SMDs do not definitively confirm their absence, due to the proven underdetection via the 2-step method.