Accuracy of a semi-quantitative urine pregnancy test compared to serum beta-hCG measurement: a possible screening tool for ongoing pregnancy after medication abortion

被引:16
作者
Grossman, Daniel [1 ]
Berdichevsky, Karla
Larrea, Fernando
Beltran, Jorge
机构
[1] San Francisco Gen Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, San Francisco, CA 94110 USA
[2] Reg Off Amer & Caribbean, Populat Council, Mexico City 04000, DF, Mexico
[3] Inst Nacl Ciencias Med & Nutr Salvador Zubiran, Dept Reprod Biol, Mexico City 14000, DF, Mexico
[4] Inst Nacl Perinatol Isidro Espinosa Reyes, Mexico City 11000, DF, Mexico
关键词
sensitivity and specificity; urine pregnancy test; abortion; hCG;
D O I
10.1016/j.contraception.2007.04.008
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 [妇产科学];
摘要
Purpose: Medication abortion protocols commonly rely on ultrasound or serum hCG measurement to confirm completion. In order to explore the use of a urine-based test to screen for ongoing pregnancy, we compared the diagnostic accuracy of a recently developed semiquantitative urine pregnancy test to serum beta-hCG testing. Methods: We evaluated the urine test with 97 women in early pregnancy at a hospital and private clinic in Mexico City. The results of the urine test (hCG level > or < 1000 IU/L) were correlated with those of a serum quantitative beta-hCG immunoradiometric assay. Results: The sensitivity of the urine test to identify individuals with a serum beta-hCG level > 1000 IU/L was 88.6% (95% CI 74.6- 95.7%), and its specificity was 71.7% (95% CI 57.4-82.8%). Conclusion: The reasonably high sensitivity of this urine test suggests it might be useful as a screening test to detect ongoing pregnancy after medication abortion. Future research should evaluate its utility in clinical follow-up protocols. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:101 / 104
页数:4
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]
Can mifepristone medical abortion be simplified? A review of the evidence and questions for future research [J].
Clark, Wesley H. ;
Gold, Maiji ;
Grossman, Daniel ;
Winikoff, Beverly .
CONTRACEPTION, 2007, 75 (04) :245-250
[2]
Mifepristone-misoprostol abortion: a trial in rural and urban Maharashtra, India [J].
Coyaji, K ;
Elul, B ;
Krishna, U ;
Otiv, S ;
Ambardekar, S ;
Bopardikar, A ;
Raote, V ;
Ellertson, C ;
Winikoff, B .
CONTRACEPTION, 2002, 66 (01) :33-40
[3]
Clinical utility of urine pregnancy assays to determine medical abortion outcome is limited [J].
Godfrey, Emily M. ;
Anderson, Anita ;
Fielding, Stephen L. ;
Meyn, Leslie ;
Creinin, Mitchell D. .
CONTRACEPTION, 2007, 75 (05) :378-382
[4]
Routine follow-up visits after first-trimester induced abortion [J].
Grossman, D ;
Ellertson, C ;
Grimes, DA ;
Walker, D .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2004, 103 (04) :738-745
[5]
Mifepristone and misoprostol for early medical abortion: 18 months experience in the United States [J].
Hausknecht, R .
CONTRACEPTION, 2003, 67 (06) :463-465
[6]
The kinetics of serum hCG and progesterone in response to oral and vaginal administration of misoprostol during medical termination of early pregnancy [J].
Honkanen, H ;
Ranta, S ;
Ylikorkala, O ;
Heikinheimo, O .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2002, 17 (09) :2315-2319
[7]
A prospective randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial comparing mifepristone and vaginal misoprostol to vaginal misoprostol alone for elective termination of early pregnancy [J].
Jain, JK ;
Dutton, C ;
Harwood, B ;
Meckstroth, KR ;
Mishell, DR .
HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2002, 17 (06) :1477-1482
[8]
Women's perspectives on medical abortion in Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru:: A qualitative study [J].
Lafaurie, MM ;
Grossman, D ;
Troncoso, E ;
Billings, DL ;
Chávez, S .
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH MATTERS, 2005, 13 (26) :75-83
[9]
Is home-based administration of prostaglandin safe and feasible for medical abortion? - Results from a multisite study in Vietnam [J].
Ngoc, NTN ;
Nhan, VQ ;
Blum, J ;
Mai, TTP ;
Durocher, JM ;
Winikoff, B .
BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2004, 111 (08) :814-819
[10]
Medication abortion and family physicians' scope of practice [J].
Prine, LW ;
Lesnewski, R .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF FAMILY PRACTICE, 2005, 18 (04) :304-306