Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 3.638

CiteScore 2018: 2.44

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.191
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.205

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 48, Issue 7

Issues

Reproductive-endocrine point-of-care testing: current status and limitations

Mark A. Cervinski
  • Department of Pathology, Dartmouth Medical School and Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Ann M. Gronowski
  • Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2010-05-06 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2010.183

Abstract

Point-of-care (POC) testing for the detection of pregnancy and the prediction of ovulation has grown and evolved since the introduction of the first qualitative pregnancy test marketed directly to the consumer over three decades ago. Numerous publications have analyzed both pregnancy and ovulation prediction devices for their sensitivity, accuracy and general utility. Despite vast improvements in ease-of-use and sensitivity from their earlier forms, the primary literature regarding the utility of these devices is at times incomplete. This article reviews the literature focusing on the sensitivity and accuracy of the modern urine-luteinizing hormone ovulation prediction devices, and the effect these devices have on fertility rates. In addition, the analytical sensitivity and clinical utility of POC pregnancy tests will be reviewed, along with the potential causes of false negative and false positive results.

Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:935–42.

Keywords: diagnostic efficiency; human chorionic gonadotropin; luteinizing hormone; point-of-care

About the article

Corresponding author: Dr. Ann M. Gronowski, Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, Box 8118, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA Phone: +314-362-0194, Fax: +314-362-1461,


Published Online: 2010-05-06

Published in Print: 2010-07-01


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Volume 48, Issue 7, Pages 935–942, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2010.183.

Export Citation

©2010 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin New York.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Satish Kalme, Srinivasan Kandaswamy, Anusha Chandrasekharmath, Reeta Katiyar, Gokul Prasath Rajamanickam, Suraj Kumar, and Dhananjaya Dendukuri
Analytical Methods, 2019, Volume 11, Number 12, Page 1639
[2]
Naomi K. Tepper, Kathryn M. Curtis, Tara C. Jatlaoui, and Maura K. Whiteman
Contraception, 2017, Volume 95, Number 4, Page 323
[3]
Lorrae Marriott, Michael Zinaman, Keith R Abrams, Michael J Crowther, and Sarah Johnson
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry, 2016, Page 000456321667133
[4]
John Stanback, Irina Yacobson, and Lucy Harber
Contraception, 2017, Volume 95, Number 4, Page 326
[5]
Hakho Lee, Tae-Hyun Shin, Jinwoo Cheon, and Ralph Weissleder
Chemical Reviews, 2015, Volume 115, Number 19, Page 10690
[6]
Jaspur Min, Christina Buckel, Gina M. Secura, Jeffrey F. Peipert, and Tessa Madden
Contraception, 2015, Volume 91, Number 1, Page 80
[7]
Chun-Wing Yeung and Annie N. Y. Cheung
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports, 2014, Volume 3, Number 1, Page 102
[8]
Joanna Pike, Sonya Godbert, and Sarah Johnson
Expert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics, 2013, Volume 7, Number 5, Page 435
[9]
Naomi K. Tepper, Polly A. Marchbanks, and Kathryn M. Curtis
Contraception, 2013, Volume 87, Number 5, Page 661
[10]
Stacy E. F. Melanson
Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology, 2011, Volume 10, Number 2, Page 63

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in