Article Text

PDF
Comparison of two low-sensitivity urine pregnancy tests for confirming the success of early medical abortion
  1. Sarah Louise Millar1,
  2. Sharon Tracey Cameron1,2
  1. 1 Chalmers Sexual Health Clinic, Edinburgh, UK
  2. 2 Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor Sharon Tracey Cameron, Chalmers Sexual Health Centre, Edinburgh EH3 9ES, UK; sharon.cameron{at}ed.ac.uk

Abstract

Background We introduced a single-window low-sensitivity urine pregnancy test (LSPT) to replace a double-window LSPT (both 1000 IU hCG) for self-assessment of the outcome of early medical abortion (EMA) (≤63 days gestation) 2 weeks later. We wished to compare assessment of outcomes of EMA with each LSPT.

Methods A retrospective review of the outcomes of EMA during 10 months' use of the double-window LSPT and the subsequent 10 months' use of the single-window LSPT to compare (i) detection of ongoing pregnancies and (ii) false-positive and invalid results with each LSPT.

Results 492 and 555 women self-assessed the outcome of their EMA with the double- and single-window LSPTs, respectively. Ongoing pregnancies were uncommon and occurred in 4/1047 women (0.4%). Two of these four women did not conduct a LSPT as they presented before the LSPT was due with scant bleeding or continuing pregnancy symptoms. False-positive LSPT results occurred in 6 (1.2%) and 19 (3.4%) double- and single-window LSPT tests, respectively (P=0.0244). Invalid results were reported in 18 (3.6%) and 6 (1.1%) of double- and single-window LSPT groups, respectively (P=0.01).

Conclusion The introduction of the single-window LSPT has not impacted on the detection of ongoing pregnancy or on contact with the service due to a positive or invalid LSPT. Services could consider use of either LSPT but should also place emphasis on informing women about the clinical signs and symptoms that suggest failed abortion.

  • abortion
  • progesterone receptor modulators

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors SLM conducted the review and wrote the paper. STC supervised SLM and made changes to the paper and approved the final version.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.