Talk:Pregnancy test

message: I'm working on this page as part of a Wiki ed project, and noticed the recent reverts from changes to gender inclusive language (from person to female.) I'd like to change back to person. I think it captures all audiences (LGBTQIA spectrum) and is in line with trends in scientific writing.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5774006/  - the importance of gender inclusive writing 
And the guide for authors from a journal I regularly engage with (please see "use of inclusive language") https://www.elsevier.com/journals/contraception/0010-7824/guide-for-authors#8200
What do you think ? GPF MD, MPH (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: gender inclusive language

message: 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)
thread_title: how soon?

message: 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: http://pregnancyguide.theazonway.com/different-types-of-pregnancy-tests/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.136.121.85 (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Consider This

message: 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:  Wolfmankurd 20:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: In Males

message: 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.--74.95.125.166 15:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: practical stuff

message: 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 60.240.253.132 (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)
thread_title:  A miscalculation? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge with early pregnancy test 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Urine test in painting 

message: A recent editor linked a report on a review from 1998 .  I read the full text of the review , 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)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: Could someone knowledgeable plse. add "Galli Mainini" to the frog test section. see: http://jp.physoc.org/content/113/2-3/322.full.pdf --99.11.160.111 (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galli Mainini  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pregnancy test software 

message: We can see this lines "Regina Kapeller-Adler devised an innovative test for early pregnancy" in this wikipedia article. So but this article didn't mention about Regina Kapeller-Adler. Please mention it. Ram nareshji (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regina Kapeller-Adler devised an innovative test for early pregnancy 

message: Hi everyone! med student here; I'll be helping to improve this page over the next month – here's the plan thus far
=== Organization ===
Lead is somewhat rambling
- ?? re: terminology, is there any insensitivity/exclusivity in the opening statement that pregnancy tests determine if a “woman” is pregnant in terms of the trans or other non-binary communities?
- Check definition of pregnancy and whether implantation is implied in that or not
- Should this include a quick basic science intro into bhCG since that’s the target of every test
=== Potential section reorganization ===
- Lead
- Current options – should Accuracy and/or Other uses e.g. checking for viability/potential use for malignancy detection in males be included as a subsection here
- History (already exists – but I’d move around some other points into this section)
=== Verify existing citations & factcheck unsubstantiated statements ===
:if anyone has any idea where I can find a list of different urine OTC pregnancy tests' hCG cut-off values that isn't from a sponsored site or is more recent than 2006 that would be much appreciated!
::Slxiao1317 (talk)
=== Updates ===
- systemic review of at-home kits is from 1998 – has anything changed since then that would be relevant?
- Maybe add a picture of bHCG levels during pregnancy – too science-y?
Open to suggestions/ideas! Slxiao1317 (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  the article is sufficient enough for an average person looking up for pregnancy test, i really liked the categories of this page and how all the common arising questions are well discussed. i tried using the reference links added by you please look into it as they are not opening. other than that the edits are really good.(Monica Gopalakrishnan (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiEducation Workplan 

message: - systemic review of at-home kits is from 1998 – has anything changed since then that would be relevant?
- Maybe add a picture of bHCG levels during pregnancy – too science-y?
Open to suggestions/ideas! Slxiao1317 (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  the article is sufficient enough for an average person looking up for pregnancy test, i really liked the categories of this page and how all the common arising questions are well discussed. i tried using the reference links added by you please look into it as they are not opening. other than that the edits are really good.(Monica Gopalakrishnan (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updates 

message: Our proposed edits include:
- The group added a section about physical exams as one of the early assessment for pregnancy (AT)
- The group also clarified the difference between the blood and urine hCG test using lay language (VT)
- The group added a follow-up guide after receiving a false positive/negative result (MS/TS) Atrinh22 (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundations II 2020 Group 19 proposed edits