Prospective 1-year assessment of within-woman variability of follicular and luteal phase lengths in healthy women prescreened to have normal menstrual cycle and luteal phase lengths
Authors: Henry Sarah , Shirin Sonia , Goshtasebi Azita , Prior Jerilynn C 
Published: September 2024

Abstract

STUDY QUESTION
What is the relative length variance of the luteal phase compared to the follicular phase within healthy, non-smoking, normal-weight, proven normally ovulatory, premenopausal women with normal-length menstrual cycles?

SUMMARY ANSWER
Prospective 1-year data from 53 premenopausal women with two proven normal-length (21–36 days) and normally ovulatory (≥10 days luteal) menstrual cycles upon enrollment showed that, despite 29% of all cycles having incident ovulatory disturbances, within-woman follicular phase length variances were significantly greater than luteal phase length variances.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY
Many studies report menstrual cycle variability, yet few describe variability in follicular and luteal phase lengths. Luteal lengths are assumed ‘fixed’ at 13–14 days. Most studies have described follicular and luteal phase variability between-women.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION
This study was a prospective, 1-year, observational cohort study of relative follicular and luteal phase variability both between and within community-dwelling women with two documented normal-length (21–36 days) and normally ovulatory (≥10 days luteal phase) menstrual cycles prior to enrollment. Eighty-one women enrolled in the study and 66 women completed the 1-year study. This study analyzed data from 53 women with complete data for ≥8 cycles (mean 13).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS
Participants were healthy, non-smoking, of normal BMI, ages 21–41 with two documented normal-length (21–36 days) and normally ovulatory (≥10 days luteal phase) menstrual cycles prior to enrollment. Participants recorded first morning temperature, exercise durations, and menstrual cycle/life experiences daily in the Menstrual Cycle Diary. We analyzed 694 cycles utilizing a twice-validated least-squares Quantitative Basal Temperature method to determine follicular and luteal phase lengths. Statistical analysis compared relative follicular and luteal phase variance in ovulatory cycles both between-women and within-woman. Normal-length cycles with short luteal phases or anovulation were considered to have subclinical ovulatory disturbances (SOD).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE
The 1-year overall 53-woman, 676 ovulatory cycle variances for menstrual cycle, follicular, and luteal phase lengths were 10.3, 11.2, and 4.3 days, respectively. Median variances within-woman for cycle, follicular, and luteal lengths were 3.1, 5.2, and 3.0 days, respectively. Menstrual cycles were largely of normal lengths (98%) with an important prevalence of SOD: 55% of women experienced &gt;1 short luteal phase (&lt;10 days) and 17% experienced at least one anovulatory cycle. Within-woman follicular phase length variances were greater than luteal phase length variances (P &lt; 0.001). However, follicular (P = 0.008) and luteal phase length (P = 0.001) variances, without differences in cycle lengths, were greater in women experiencing any anovulatory cycles (n = 8) than in women with entirely normally ovulatory cycles (n = 6).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION
Limitations of this study include the relatively small cohort, that most women were White, initially had a normal BMI, and the original cohort required two normal-length and normally ovulatory menstrual cycles before enrollment. Thus, this cohort’s data underestimated population menstrual cycle phase variances and the prevalence of SOD.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
Our results reinforce previous findings that the follicular phase is more variable than the luteal phase in premenopausal women with normal-length and ovulatory menstrual cycles. However, our study adds to the growing body of evidence that the luteal phase is not predictably 13–14 days long.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)
This medical education project of the University of British Columbia was funded by donations to the Centre for Menstrual Cycle and Ovulation Research. The authors do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
N/A.