Diagnostic efficiency of home pregnancy test kits. A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE To assess the diagnostic efficiency of home pregnancy test (HPT) kits. DATA SOURCES A literature search of English-language studies was performed with MEDLINE and a review of bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION Studies were included if HPT kits were compared with a criterion standard (laboratory testing), if they used appropriate controls, and if data were available to determine sensitivity and specificity. DATA EXTRACTION Two investigators independently extracted data, and disagreement was resolved by consensus. Sensitivity, specificity, and an effectiveness score (a measure of the discriminatory power of the test, with higher scores implying greater effectiveness) were calculated. DATA SYNTHESIS Five studies evaluating 16 HPT kits met the inclusion criteria. The range of sensitivities for HPT kits was 0.52 to 1.0. In studies where urine samples obtained by the investigators were tested by volunteers, sensitivity was 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-0.96). However, the sensitivity was less in studies where subjects were actual patients who performed the test on their own urine samples (sensitivity, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.64-0.85]). The test effectiveness score was 2.75 (95% CI, 2.3-3.2) for studies where subjects were volunteers but deteriorated to 0.82 (95% CI, 0.4-1.2) for studies with actual patients. CONCLUSIONS The diagnostic efficiency of HPT kits is greatly affected by characteristics of the users. Despite the popularity of these kits, the relatively low effectiveness scores of these kits when used by actual patients are of concern. We suggest that manufacturers of HPT kits publish results of trials in actual patients before marketing them to the general public.

[1]  R. Norman When a positive pregnancy test isn't , 1991, The Medical journal of Australia.

[2]  Arnaud Jaccard,et al.  Reliability of home pregnancy-test kits in the hands of laypersons. , 1989 .

[3]  R. Bright,et al.  How frequently are home pregnancy tests used? Results from the 1988 National Maternal and Infant Health Survey. , 1991, Birth.

[4]  T. A. Gossel Home testing products for self-monitoring. , 1988, American journal of hospital pharmacy.

[5]  N. Latman,et al.  Evaluation of home pregnancy test kits. , 1989, Biomedical instrumentation & technology.

[6]  D. Simel,et al.  Does the clinical examination predict airflow limitation? , 1995, JAMA.

[7]  L. Hedges,et al.  Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. , 1995, Psychological bulletin.

[8]  D B Matchar,et al.  Noninvasive Carotid Artery Testing: A Meta-analytic Review , 1995, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[9]  J. Stephenson Pregnancy testing and counseling. , 1989, Pediatric clinics of North America.

[10]  F. Zuspan,et al.  Practical applications of home diagnostic products. A symposium. , 1987, The Journal of reproductive medicine.

[11]  L. Muhlbaier,et al.  An evaluation of the sensitivity of five home pregnancy tests to known concentrations of human chorionic gonadotropin. , 1982, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[12]  T. Chard Pregnancy tests: a review. , 1992, Human reproduction.

[13]  L. Hedges,et al.  Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis , 1987 .

[14]  B. Pau,et al.  Reliability and feasibility of pregnancy home-use tests: laboratory validation and diagnostic evaluation by 638 volunteers. , 1993, Clinical chemistry.

[15]  F. Rojas,et al.  Performance and sensitivity of modern home pregnancy tests. , 1988, International journal of fertility.

[16]  J M Hicks Home testing: to do or not to do? , 1993, Clinical chemistry.

[17]  Mary L. Doshi Accuracy of Consumer Performed In-Home Tests for Early Pregnancy Detection , 1987 .

[18]  Early diagnosis of pregnancy: a symposium. , 1981, The Journal of reproductive medicine.

[19]  B. Valanis,et al.  Home pregnancy testing kits: prevalence of use, false-negative rates, and compliance with instructions. , 1982, American journal of public health.