Every year more and more future moms discover the ease of pinpointing their ovulation time by using a mini ovulation microscope (MOM). That device comes in a set of equipment, equipment designed for women who are planning to take the microscope ovulation test.

The microscope ovulation test does not require a blood or urine sample. The microscope ovulation test requires a mere drop or two of a woman’s saliva. The microscope ovulation test can detect significant changes in a woman’s saliva. They are biochemical changes that signal the release of estrogen by the ovaries.

Since the ovaries produce estrogen following the release of a mature ovum, anything that shows an increase in the body’s estrogen level can be interpreted as a sign that ovulation has occurred. That premise fueled the search for an ovulation test that a woman could easily do at home. That premise caused some observant researchers to follow-up on a finding made in 1945.

During that year, a man name Papanicolau discovered crystallized salt in cervical fluid. Those salt crystals formed a fern-like pattern, a pattern that was clearly visible in the microscope. The appearance of those crystals seemed directly related to the ovulation time of the woman who had contributed the saliva sample.

In 1969 Dr. Biel Cassals found the same evidence of crystallized salt in saliva from a group of women. Cassal’s discovery led to the development of an ovulation test that could be done in the home. The FDA approved that test in 2001, and by 2002 it was on drugstore shelves.

Whenever a woman wants to use a mini microscope to check for crystals in her saliva, she must follow a very simple procedure. First she must put 1 or 2 drops of saliva on the lens of a mini microscope. Once the saliva has dried, the curious woman can put the lens back in the mini microscope and then turn on the light. The microscope will magnify the image 52 times.

The woman peering into the mini microscope can expect to see one of three things. She can expect to see dots, a few fern crystals or a fern-like pattern over the entire microscope field. Each of those images indicates the presence or absence of ovulation. A field of dots means no ovulation; a field with a few fern crystals means some ovulation, and a small chance that the woman could get pregnant. A fern-like pattern over the entire field means that ovulation is occurring, and the ovulating woman stands a good chance of becoming pregnant.

All of that information exists on a tiny lens in a mini microscope. All of that information comes to light during the taking of a microscope ovulation test.

Due to the popularity of home pregnancy tests, a list of frequently asked ovulation test kit questions would probably include this query: “Is the ovulation test like the pregnancy test?” The physician who hears that question should look at it as an invitation to present information on female reproductive hormones. Both the pregnancy test and the ovulation test rely on the detection of a particular female hormone.

In that aspect, the ovulation test is similar to the pregnancy test. Yet those two tests also have many important differences. It is imperative for a woman who is about to use the ovulation test kit to set aside time in which to become familiar with those differences. 

First of all, she should learn that the ovulation test, unlike the pregnancy test, tries to detect release of a hormone prior to the desired event. While the pregnancy test measures hCG, a hormone released following conception, the ovulation test detects luteinizing hormone (LH). The pituitary gland releases LH hormone as a signal to the ovary. The LH surge tells the ovary to release the mature ovum.

When a woman wants to become pregnant, she wants to know when she will release a mature ovum, i.e. when she will experience ovulation. A released ovum can travel down the fallopian tube toward the uterus. A released ovum can have a chance meeting with a sperm cell. A released ovum can undergo fertilization.

A woman taking an ovulation test wants an accurate prediction of when she will release a mature ovum. If she wants to guarantee the accuracy of that prediction, then she will take the time to learn how the ovulation test differs from the pregnancy test. She will learn that the sample for the ovulation test should be obtained in the middle of the afternoon, usually about 2 pm.

That of course assumes that the woman has slept during the evening, and that she woke up at a typical hour of the morning. A woman who works nights, such as a night nurse, might want to consult with her physician concerning when she should plan to take the ovulation test. She could also talk with her physician about the two different types of ovulation tests.

In order to perform one such test, a woman must collect a urine sample and then place a testing strip in that sample. In order to perform the alternate ovulation test, a woman places a test stick in a stream of urine. Both tests have a control marking, against which the test results should be compared.

Both tests offer greater accuracy and greater convenience than the traditional method used for detecting the time of a woman’s ovulation. Both tests can help a woman achieve what she wants most—a good chance for getting a positive result following performance of the pregnancy test.

Ovulation tests normally require a minimal investment by the test subjects. Traditional ovulation tests took the form of a reach for the thermometer every morning for several months. In that way, the female test subject could chart the changes in her basal body temperature (BBT). Of course, the expense of that test could increase, if the test subject were to repeatedly drop the glass thermometer.

More than thirty-five years ago, when a future freelance writer became the subject of a series of ovulation tests, glass thermometers were the normal way to take a temperature at home. Although the future writer took an interest in charting the changes in her BBT, she did not enjoy her own clumsy handling of the glass thermometer. On several mornings it dropped on the floor and broke.

Eventually, the future writer could provide her doctor with a chart of her BBT over a three to four month period. As the doctor put the young lady on certain medications, her chart began to look more “normal.” It began to show a peak every 28 days or so. That peak represented a temperature rise, following a surge of luteinizing hormone (LH) in the young lady’s body.

Yet the doctor realized that the charted BBT provided only part of the information that he needed. The chart suggested that the young woman had begun to develop a predictable cycle. Her chart provided evidence of an LH surge once a month. That LH surge would follow the development of a mature egg, a maturation triggered by follicle stimulating hormone (FSH).  Yet her chart did not reveal the amount of LH released during each surge.

The absence of that information, underlined the weakness in all of the traditional ovulation tests. They did not tell doctors how much LH had been released into the woman’s bloodstream. She would need a certain, minimum level of LH in order to pass through the stage of ovulation, i.e. the release of the matured egg into the fallopian tube.

The young woman’s physician knew a way to obtain the information that he needed, but he realized that he would need further cooperation from his patient. The doctor planned to carry-out a second type of ovulation test. That test would require collection of the patient’s urine for a specified 48 hour period. The doctor then planned to have the laboratory measure the LH level in the urine from that 48-hour period. 

Compared to the present-day ovulation tests, that test demanded extensive preparation. The doctor needed to provide his patient with many different plastic containers. Then he had to explain to the patient how the containers were to be labeled. Unfortunately, the final results from the lab proved inconclusive. They underscored the need for simpler and more efficient ovulation tests.