Research review 196
Systematic review and meta-analysis
Short answer
A review found that apps were used for cycle monitoring, pregnancy planning and symptom tracking. Results varied substantially across studies and the certainty of the overall evidence was rated very low.
What did the researchers investigate?
Researchers searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, including 14 studies from 2017–2025 with a total of 3,547 participants. Six studies contributed to a meta-analysis of app-use prevalence.
What did the researchers find?
Pooled app-use prevalence was 61% (95% CI 45–75%). Differences between the studies were very large (I² = 98.1%). Reported uses included monitoring cycles, pregnancy planning or avoidance and tracking symptoms. Concerns included predictive accuracy, privacy, data security and distress from inaccurate predictions.
How certain can we be?
Very high heterogeneity and very low evidence certainty mean that 61% must not be presented as a universal population estimate. The review does not establish that app use improves or worsens health.
Who do the findings apply to?
A total of 3,547 participants across 14 studies from different populations and settings. These findings are not automatically representative of everyone who menstruates or of the Norwegian population.
What might this mean in everyday life?
Apps may help with keeping records, but fertility and health predictions require caution. An ordinary period-tracking app is not in itself a reliable contraceptive method or diagnostic test.
What do we still need to know?
We need representative samples, direct app-feature comparisons and studies of actual health outcomes.
Sources
Original publication
Anenga UM et al. Use of Menstruation Tracking Apps Among Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Multi-Country Evidence. Nigerian Medical Journal. 2026. PMID: 42605407.
Source checked: 10 November 2026.
Source basis: Published original article or accessible abstract and reported information on methods, results and limitations. This review is based on what the researchers themselves report about their methods, findings and limitations.