 |
|
Diagnostic Efficiency of Home Pregnancy Test Kits
A Meta-analysis
Lori A. Bastian, MD, MPH;
Kavita Nanda, MD, MHS;
Vic Hasselblad, PhD;
David L. Simel, MD, MHS
Arch Fam Med. 1998;7:465-469.
Objective To assess the diagnostic efficiency of home pregnancy test (HPT) kits.
Data Sources A literature search of English-language studies was performed with MEDLINE and a review of bibliographies.
Study Selection Studies were included if HPT kits were compared with a criterion standard (laboratory testing), if they used appropriate controls, and if data were available to determine sensitivity and specificity.
Data Extraction Two investigators independently extracted data, and disagreement was resolved by consensus. Sensitivity, specificity, and an effectiveness score (a measure of the discriminatory power of the test, with higher scores implying greater effectiveness) were calculated.
Data Synthesis Five studies evaluating 16 HPT kits met the inclusion criteria. The range of sensitivities for HPT kits was 0.52 to 1.0. In studies where urine samples obtained by the investigators were tested by volunteers, sensitivity was 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-0.96). However, the sensitivity was less in studies where subjects were actual patients who performed the test on their own urine samples (sensitivity, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.64-0.85]). The test effectiveness score was 2.75 (95% CI, 2.3-3.2) for studies where subjects were volunteers but deteriorated to 0.82 (95% CI, 0.4-1.2) for studies with actual patients.
Conclusions The diagnostic efficiency of HPT kits is greatly affected by characteristics of the users. Despite the popularity of these kits, the relatively low effectiveness scores of these kits when used by actual patients are of concern. We suggest that manufacturers of HPT kits publish results of trials in actual patients before marketing them to the general public.
From the Departments of Internal Medicine (Drs Bastian, Nanda, and Simel), Obstetrics and Gynecology (Dr Bastian), and Center for Health Policy and Research (Dr Hasselblad), Duke University Medical Center, the Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care (Drs Bastian and Simel), and the Women Veterans Comprehensive Health Center, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Drs Bastian, Nanda, and Simel), Durham, NC.
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Determining the Pregnancy Status of Patients Before Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine Procedures: The Australian Experience
James et al.
J. Nucl. Med. Technol. 2011;39:220-225.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Devices for home evaluation of women's health concerns
Scolaro et al.
Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008;65:299-314.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Clinicians' guide to evaluating diagnostic and screening tests in psychiatry
Warner
Adv. Psychiatr. Treat. 2004;10:446-454.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Urinary-Based Ovulation and Pregnancy: Point-of-Care Testing
Eichner and Timpe
The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2004;38:325-331.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Detection of Early Pregnancy Forms of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin by Home Pregnancy Test Devices
Butler et al.
Clin. Chem. 2001;47:2131-2136.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Natural Limits of Pregnancy Testing in Relation to the Expected Menstrual Period
Wilcox et al.
JAMA 2001;286:1759-1761.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Other Articles Noted
Evid. Based Nurs. 1999;2:105-112.
FULL TEXT
|
