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 / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter / Tate, Jillian R.

12 Issues per year

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 3.556

CiteScore 2017: 2.34

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 1.114
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 1.188

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 49, Issue 8


The utility of six over-the-counter (home) pregnancy tests

Laurence A. Cole
  • Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, USA hCG Reference Service, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar


Background: The home pregnancy market is rapidly evolving. It has moved from detection of pregnancy on the day of missed menstrual bleeding, to detection claims 4 days prior. It is moving from all manual tests to digital tests, with a monitor reading the bands and informing women they are pregnant. A thorough study is needed to investigate the validity of claims and evolving usefulness of devices.

Methods: Studies were proposed to examine the sensitivity and specificity of home tests and their abilities to detect pregnancy. Methods examined the abilities of tests to detect human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), hyperglycosylated hCG, free β-subunit, a mixture of these antigens in 40 individual early pregnancy urines.

Results: Using a mixture of hCG, hyperglycosylated hCG and free β-subunit typical for early pregnancy, the sensitivity of the First Response manual and digital tests was 5.5 mIU/mL, while the sensitivities of the EPT and ClearBlue brand manual and digital tests was 22 mIU/mL. On further evaluation, the First Response manual and digital tests both detected 97% of 120 pregnancies on the day of missed menstrual bleeding. The EPT manual and digital devices detected 54% and 67% of pregnancies, respectively, and the ClearBlue manual and digital devices detected 64% and 54% of pregnancies, respectively.

Conclusions: First Response manual and digital claim >99% detection on the day of missed menses. The results here suggest similar sensitivity for these two tests. The EPT and ClearBlue manual and digital test make similar >99% claims, the data presented here disputes their elevated claim.

About the article

Corresponding author: Laurence A. Cole, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, USA hCG Reference Service, MSC10-5580, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA Phone: +1-505-272-6137

Received: 2010-10-28

Accepted: 2011-03-13

Published in Print: 2011-08-01

Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Volume 49, Issue 8, Pages 1317–1322, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2011.211.

Export Citation

©2011 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston.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.

Katherine J. Sapra, Germaine M. Buck Louis, Rajeshwari Sundaram, K. S. Joseph, Lisa M. Bates, Sando Galea, and Cande V. Ananth
Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 2017
Jessica X. H. Wong, Xiaochun Li, Frank S. F. Liu, and Hua-Zhong Yu
Scientific Reports, 2015, Volume 5, Number 1
Naomi K. Tepper, Kathryn M. Curtis, Tara C. Jatlaoui, and Maura K. Whiteman
Contraception, 2017, Volume 95, Number 4, Page 323
Andrew S. Paterson, Balakrishnan Raja, Vinay Mandadi, Blane Townsend, Miles Lee, Alex Buell, Binh Vu, Jakoah Brgoch, and Richard C. Willson
Lab Chip, 2017, Volume 17, Number 6, Page 1051
Katherine J. Sapra, Dana B. Barr, José M. Maisog, Rajeshwari Sundaram, and Germaine M. Buck Louis
Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 2016, Volume 18, Number 11, Page 2154
S. Nickmans, P. Vermeersch, J. Van Eldere, and J. Billen
Acta Clinica Belgica, 2014, Volume 69, Number 4, Page 277
K.J. Sapra, G.M. Buck Louis, R. Sundaram, K.S. Joseph, L.M. Bates, S. Galea, and C.V. Ananth
Human Reproduction, 2016, Volume 31, Number 4, Page 887
Lukas J.A. Stalpers, Patty J. Nelemans, Sandra M.E. Geurts, Erik Jansen, Peter de Boer, and André L.M. Verbeek
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2015, Volume 68, Number 10, Page 1120
Joanne S. M. Ebesu and Cara E. Campora
Food and Nutrition Sciences, 2012, Volume 03, Number 09, Page 1233
Jeremy E. Schonhorn, Syrena C. Fernandes, Anjali Rajaratnam, Rachel N. Deraney, Jason P. Rolland, and Charles R. Mace
Lab Chip, 2014, Volume 14, Number 24, Page 4653
Kjetil Søreide
Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening, 2013, Volume 133, Number 20, Page 2162
Naomi K. Tepper, Polly A. Marchbanks, and Kathryn M. Curtis
Contraception, 2013, Volume 87, Number 5, Page 661
Laurence A. Cole
Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 2012, Volume 93, Number 1, Page 52

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in