-
Annales Academiae Medicae Stetinensis 2012The first decades of the twentieth century were the times of intensive search for a reliable laboratory test for early pregnancy. Among some tests proposed, the one...
The first decades of the twentieth century were the times of intensive search for a reliable laboratory test for early pregnancy. Among some tests proposed, the one developed in 1912 by a Swiss pioneer in clinical biochemistry, Emil Abderhalden, earned greatest response. Unlike other authors of pregnancy tests, Abderhalden claimed that his "defense ferments reaction" (Abwehrfermentsreaktion), if performed according to his methodology, was 100% specific and sensitive for pregnancy, even in its first weeks. Abderhalden's test raised much interest worldwide. Within the first few years from its first announcement, several hundred papers on the evaluation of the test's reliability were published, most of them enthusiastic. Variations of Abderhalden's test were hoped to work effectively as diagnostic tools in psychiatry, oncology, and internal diseases. Many clinicians believed that thanks to Abdehalden's method a wide range of conditions, such as schizophrenia, depression or cancers, could be unequivocally diagnosed with one serum test. In 1928, Abderhalden's reaction as a pregnancy test was replaced with the biological test developed by Aschheim and Zondek. In psychiatry, however, Abderhalden's test was used and evaluated as a diagnostic tool up till the 1930s. Only after Abderhalden's death in 1950 the "defense ferments reaction" was finally rejected as having no reliable scientific background. This paper presents the circumstances in which Emil Abderhalden developed his diagnostic test, the principles of the test, the methodology proposed by Abderhalden, as well as the response to the test and its variations in Germany and other countries.
Topics: Female; Germany; History, 20th Century; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Tests; Reproducibility of Results; Switzerland
PubMed: 23767182
DOI: No ID Found -
The Journal of Obstetrics and... Dec 1949
Topics: Animals; Biological Assay; Bufonidae; Female; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Tests
PubMed: 15404911
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1949.tb07168.x -
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology... Aug 1950
Topics: Animals; Female; Male; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Tests; Rana ridibunda; Ranidae
PubMed: 15436652
DOI: 10.1210/jcem-10-8-933 -
Women's Health Issues : Official... 2009We sought to determine whether a brief intervention increased home pregnancy test utilization among women at risk for unintended pregnancy.
PURPOSE
We sought to determine whether a brief intervention increased home pregnancy test utilization among women at risk for unintended pregnancy.
METHODS
The intervention included education, consultation with a nurse, and the provision of a free home pregnancy test kit. Participants were 35 women aged 18-39 years from a Medicaid population who were having unprotected intercourse and who were not trying to conceive. The women received education on pregnancy testing and the importance of early recognition of pregnancy. All women received a free home pregnancy test kit. The main outcome measures were pregnancy test use and appropriateness of use.
MAIN FINDINGS
During the 3-month follow-up period, 62% of participants used the home pregnancy test kit, which was approximately 3 times higher than the self-reported testing rate before the study (p < .001). The most common reason for use was a late period (median 5 days late when test was done). Women also purchased additional kits to confirm the initial test result (median 2 kits per episode of use).
CONCLUSION
The intervention increased utilization of home pregnancy test kits among women at risk of unintended pregnancy. All study participants used the test appropriately. These results can serve as a framework for interventions to improve early pregnancy recognition.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Female; Health Education; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; Health Promotion; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Tests; Pregnancy, Unplanned; Program Evaluation; Risk; Self Care; Young Adult
PubMed: 19589475
DOI: 10.1016/j.whi.2009.03.006 -
Clinical Chemistry Jan 2014
Topics: Female; History, 20th Century; History, 21st Century; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Tests; Time Factors; Urinalysis
PubMed: 24025847
DOI: 10.1373/clinchem.2013.202655 -
Theriogenology Apr 2023The aim of this study was to determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of two pregnancy-associated glycoproteins tests (IDEXX on-farm pregnancy test [OFPT] and IDEXX...
The aim of this study was to determine and compare the diagnostic accuracy of two pregnancy-associated glycoproteins tests (IDEXX on-farm pregnancy test [OFPT] and IDEXX rapid visual pregnancy test [RVPT]) for early pregnancy diagnosis in dairy cattle. Blood samples were collected from Holstein cows (n = 317) by coccygeal venipuncture 28-31 days after artificial insemination (AI). The OFPT and RVPT were performed on the farm within 2 h after blood collection using whole blood or blood serum. Transrectal ultrasonography (USG) was performed for pregnancy diagnosis on day 32 post-AI as a gold standard. One-hundred fourteen cows were diagnosed as pregnant and 203 were determined to be nonpregnant. Furthermore, embryonic mortality was detected in four of the nonpregnant animals, based on fragmented/dispersed embryonic membranes and the absence of heartbeat. Sixteen and 14 false positive results (13 jointly for both tests) were obtained for the RVPT and OFPT, respectively. Three false negative results were obtained for the RVPT. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy for the OFPT were 100%, 93.1%, 89.1%, 100% and 95.6%, and for RVPT were 97.4%, 92.1%, 87.4%, 98.4% and 94.0%, respectively. The ability of both tests to distinguish between pregnant and open cows was very good (AUC of both tests above 0.9). The OFPT and RVPT almost perfectly agreed with each other. According to McNemar's analysis, false positive results have been caused difference between the two pregnancy tests and USG. In conclusion, both the RVPT and OFPT proved to be reliable and practical methods for pregnancy diagnosis 28-31 days after AI in dairy cows. However, the results of both pregnancy tests were affected by the occurrence of embryonic mortality around the time of their employment.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Cattle; Animals; Glycoproteins; Pregnancy Tests; Predictive Value of Tests; Ultrasonography; Insemination, Artificial; Progesterone; Lactation
PubMed: 36738574
DOI: 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2023.01.022 -
Primary Care Dec 1986Laboratory testing is an extension of the physical examination, reaching sites that are otherwise inaccessible to the examiner. Pregnancy testing is one such diagnostic... (Review)
Review
Laboratory testing is an extension of the physical examination, reaching sites that are otherwise inaccessible to the examiner. Pregnancy testing is one such diagnostic extension. Like physical examination, it must be used carefully. In choosing a pregnancy test for office use, many factors must be considered, so that accurate information will be available for patient management. Such factors as the technical skills and training of the office staff performing the test, shelf life of the test, need to refrigerate reagents, and frequency of usage are all important considerations. Test results must always be correlated with specific patients and clinical findings, and at times, doubts may be allayed by simply retesting patients with negative or equivocal results at a later time (currently a matter of days instead of weeks). Recent developments in pregnancy testing have been directed toward improved sensitivity and specificity, as well as speed, simplicity, and reduced cost. The clinical issue of greatest interest to most primary care physicians is the early diagnosis of normal pregnancy, where "early" may be defined as prior to the first missed menses. Diagnosis in the first 21 days of gestation is currently possible with more sensitive methods, and especially with enzyme-linked immunoassay. In this regard, because of its easy methodology and basic reliability, the enzyme-linked immunoassay may well become the new standard for office pregnancy testing.
Topics: Biological Assay; Female; Health Facilities; Humans; Immunologic Techniques; Physicians' Offices; Placental Hormones; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Tests; Self Care
PubMed: 3541014
DOI: No ID Found -
Theriogenology Mar 1999The usefulness of fecal estrone (E1) measurement as a tool for pregnancy diagnosis was investigated. Concentrations of E1 were measured in feces from pregnant and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
The usefulness of fecal estrone (E1) measurement as a tool for pregnancy diagnosis was investigated. Concentrations of E1 were measured in feces from pregnant and nonpregnant sows by a direct ELISA without extraction. Highly significant differences in E1 concentrations were found in feces from nonpregnant and pregnant sows (P = 0.016 to < 0.001). Pregnancy diagnosis on Days 26 to 32 after insemination, based both on fecal E1 concentrations as measured by ELISA and ultrasonography using a 5.0 MHz linear-array transducer, was performed in a group of 496 gilts and sows. The fecal E1 test had a sensitivity (correct diagnosis of pregnancy) of 96.5% and a specificity (correct diagnosis of nonpregnancy) of 93.6%, using 3.65 ng E1/g feces as a cut-off value. For ultrasonographic pregnancy diagnosis the test sensitivity and specificity were 99.3 and 92.5%, respectively. Although an increase of fecal E1 concentrations was noticed for increasing litter sizes, the results indicated that these concentrations could not be used to predict litter size. It is concluded that the distribution of fecal E1 concentrations in both nonpregnant and pregnant sows offers a suitable basis for the development of a simple, sow-side pregnancy test.
Topics: Animal Husbandry; Animals; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay; Estrone; False Positive Reactions; Feces; Female; Litter Size; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Tests; Pregnancy, Animal; Swine; Ultrasonography, Prenatal
PubMed: 10729006
DOI: 10.1016/s0093-691x(99)00031-x -
PloS One 2021In sub-Saharan Africa little is known about how often women use pregnancy self-tests or characteristics of these women despite evidence that pregnancy self-testing is... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
In sub-Saharan Africa little is known about how often women use pregnancy self-tests or characteristics of these women despite evidence that pregnancy self-testing is associated with early antenatal care (ANC) initiation. Understanding the characteristics of women who use pregnancy self-tests can facilitate more targeted efforts to improve pregnancy testing experiences and entry into the ANC pathway. We conducted a cross-sectional survey among pregnant women enrolling in a pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) implementation study to determine the prevalence and factors associated with pregnancy self-testing among women in western Kenya. Overall, in our study population, 17% of women obtained a pregnancy self-test from a pharmacy. Pregnancy test use was higher among employed women, women with secondary and college-level educated partners, and women who spent 30 minutes or less traveling to the maternal and child health (MCH) clinic. The most reported reasons for non-use of pregnancy self-tests included not thinking it was necessary, lack of knowledge, and money to pay for the test. Future research should focus on understanding the knowledge and attitudes of women toward pregnancy self-testing as well as developing community-based models to improve access to pregnancy testing and ANC.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Awareness; Cross-Sectional Studies; Female; Health Facilities; Humans; Kenya; Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Tests; Prenatal Care; Prevalence; Self-Testing; Surveys and Questionnaires; Young Adult
PubMed: 34767573
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258578 -
Clinical Chemistry Dec 2001Home pregnancy testing devices claim >99% diagnostic accuracy for pregnancy and utility on the first day of the missed menses or earlier. We investigated the forms of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Home pregnancy testing devices claim >99% diagnostic accuracy for pregnancy and utility on the first day of the missed menses or earlier. We investigated the forms of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) in early pregnancy urines, the diagnostic accuracy claim, and the abilities of 15 devices to detect the different forms of hCG.
METHODS
We measured the concentrations of regular hCG and hyperglycosylated hCG (H-hCG, a large hCG variant) in 592 urines. Fifteen home devices were tested according to manufacturers' instructions with regular hCG and H-hCG diluted in urine.
RESULTS
H-hCG was the principal hCG-related molecule in pregnancy urine in the 2 weeks following the missed menses (61% and 50% of total immunoreactivity in the 4th and 5th completed weeks of pregnancy, respectively). Of 15 home test devices, 2 had a detection limit of 6.3 IU/L for regular hCG, but poorer detection of H-hCG. Two devices detected 13 IU/L regular hCG, one with similar detection and one with poorer detection of H-hCG. Ten devices detected 25 IU/L regular hCG, 6 with poorer detection of H-hCG. One device detected 50 IU/L regular hCG, but better detected H-hCG. Overall, 9 of 15 devices did not detect H-hCG as well as regular hCG.
CONCLUSIONS
H-hCG is the principal hCG immunoreactivity in early pregnancy urine. Home tests vary widely in detection limits for regular hCG (6.3-50 IU/L), and 9 of 15 devices (60%) had poorer detection limits for H-hCG than for hCG. The variation in analytical detection limits appears contradictory to the common claim for all devices of >99% detection of pregnancy on the first day of the missed menses or earlier. We suggest that manufacturers calibrate devices for both hCG and H-hCG and determine the detection rates for pregnancy rather than the proportion of positive results at arbitrary hCG concentrations.
Topics: Chorionic Gonadotropin; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Tests; Pregnancy Tests, Immunologic; Sensitivity and Specificity
PubMed: 11719477
DOI: No ID Found