Talk:Pregnancy test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start	This page has been rated as start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance assessment scale

This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.

Contents 1 how soon? 2 In Males 3 practical stuff 4 A miscalculation? 5 Merge with early pregnancy test 6 Urine test in painting 7 Reorganization

[edit] how soon?

can u havea pregancy test up to like a day after havin sex? without a condom lol-NO!needs to be at least a day after a missed period on most tests unless you go to a doctor

[edit] In Males

Positive results on a pregnancy test for men can indicate testicular cancer, trophoblastic cancers especially. Due to high levels of HCG. Don't knwo if this should be included. A quick google search yielded this: [1] Wolfmankurd 20:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That information definitely belongs in Wikipedia, but probably belongs in either Human chorionic gonadotropin or Tumor marker. --Una Smith (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] practical stuff

This article could use some practical information on how the tests are used, what kinds of tests are on the market, whether there is any innovation or R&D, and more specific history of how the modern tests came to be.--74.95.125.166 15:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A miscalculation?

This is a dentist. I was just wondering that the part on days before test can become positive can be wrong. Or may be I should not talk about things I don't know about. Sperm can stay alive for 5 days (some suggest 6)but alright + 12 days for implantation + 3 or 4 days for detectable levels of HCG = 21. As far as I know the 12 days indeed is the maximum days after ovulation that HCG is detectably high. If I am right there should be no need to add 3 or 4 days. and it should be kept in mind that the levels double in about 2 days. In the article the accuracy is not talked about, I assume it is an accurate quantitative blood test (beta-HCG serum level). So, I think it is maximum 17 days not 21 days after intercourse that tests can show pregnancy. I don't think less sensitive commercially available urine tests will wait longer than 2 days AFTER implantations to result positive eigther. So I think three weeks is a bit too pessimistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.253.132 (talk) 10:09, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Published hCG detection levels for home urine tests vary from 20 to 100 mIU/mL. The most sensitive tests will pick up a pregnancy very quickly after implantation. But see here for a chart that shows some pregnancies still below the 100 mIU/mL threshold at 19dpo (which would be 7 days past a 12dpo implantation). Actual tests are often more sensitive than published thresholds, and three weeks is a nice even number of weeks, which is why I listed the 21 days as the upper end. Lyrl^Talk _C 21:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with early pregnancy test

An article early pregnancy test was recently created, covering hCG testing in more detail than is covered here. While it has good writing and information, I do not see a distinction between that article and this one warranting separate articles. I propose that the new information be merged into this current article. Lyrl^Talk _C 22:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urine test in painting

The commentary in the reference used for the painting says, "...the smoldering ribbon, a dubious medical test for assessing pregnancy. In one variant, the ribbon, dipped in the patient's urine, was burned; if she became nauseated at the smell, this was diagnostic of pregnancy." It would be interesting to include something about a urine test in the painting's caption. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

A recent editor linked a report on a review from 1998 [2]. I read the full text of the review [3], and to me the original paper does not come across with the degree of negatively portrayed in the report. The report, for example, just says the tests give false positives and false negatives (implying the tests are of low quality), while the original paper explains these errors largely result from not following the kit instructions (implying the tests work just fine but the instructions are of low quality). I modified the description of the review's results to be less negative, and also noted that the study was from 1998 - I'm sure there have been changes in the HPT market in the past ten years. I also removed the information on specificity, as it was not clear if the "false positives" were early miscarriages (25% of pregnancies are miscarried by the 6th week LMP, see Miscarriage#Prevalence), or evaporation lines (more failure to follow directions), or something else.

I also moved the discussion of the review to a new "accuracy" section, which includes the old "timing of test" and "false positive" sections. I moved the "modern tests" section down, so it now appears immediately before the "accuracy" section. I also expanded the lead in an attempt to comply with WP:LEAD. Hopefully this resulted in a more smoothly flowing article. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)