Talk:Pregnancy test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

how soon?[edit]

can u havea pregancy test up to like a day after having 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 Pregnancy tests are usually the beta hCG test, aka pregnancy test you pick-up at a pharmacy. It can be done as early as 11 days after suspected pregnancy. Another pregnancy test can be performed through a lab test by MD referral. This can be done as early as 3-5 days.--Xerxes Grinder 03:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerxesgrinder (talkcontribs)

Consider This[edit]

If you believe yourself to be pregnant and are interested in using a test to determine the results factually, know that the tests sold over the counter that use urine to detect the pregnancy hormone are incredibly effective. Unlike in days gone by when the only reliable way to determine whether you are indeed pregnant was to visit your primary health care provider’s office, these home tests allow you to determine whether or not you need to see a provider. Keep in mind that if you test positive for any type of home pregnancy test, you should be sure to immediately schedule an appointment with your primary health care provider. This is essential due to complications like an ectopic tubal pregnancies, where the egg lodges in the Fallopian tube and can cause a great deal of pain and medical issues if left untreated. A test will still determine that you are pregnant, although the pregnancy may not be normal or necessarily healthy. ref: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

In Males[edit]

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)

practical stuff[edit]

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.-- 15:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A miscalculation?[edit]

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 (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. LyrlTalk C 21:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge with early pregnancy test[edit]

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. LyrlTalk C 22:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Urine test in painting[edit]

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. LyrlTalk C 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


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. LyrlTalk C 00:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Per wp:style the intro should be a summary of the article containing the most interesting info. I deleted a sentence about the earliest recorded history of a pregnancy test in the second line of the intro. People coming here will hardly find that the most interesting. They want to about how a pregancy test works, what advice there is, what options exists, not some obvious text about history. What do you think?   Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you should assume that everyone coming to the page will have the same interests as you. I came here specifically to find out the history. (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Galli Mainini[edit]

Could someone knowledgeable plse. add "Galli Mainini" to the frog test section. see: -- (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Margaret Crane patents[edit]

I have written a new page for Margaret Crane. If she is the inventor of the first at-home pregnancy test she is certainly worthy of one. In researching the patents referred to in the article - "She was granted two U.S. patents: 3,579,306 and 215,774" - I cannot find US patent 215,774 or any reference to Margaret Crane on any other patent than 3,579,306. If this cannot be corrected I propose we change the article to refer to just US Patent 3,579,306[1].

Pregnancy test software[edit]

I've just removed an uncited section about pregnancy testing software. The one cite given was nothing of the sort: it was just a link to an online due-date calculator. In the absence of cites to high-quality WP:MEDRS on this, we should view claims for the validity of software-based tests with considerable skepticism. In particular, there seem to be prank "pregnancy test" apps out in the wild that are nothing of the sort. -- The Anome (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Google Patents. USPTO and Google Retrieved 27 August 2014.  Missing or empty |title= (help)