Literature DB >> 25218500

Performance of a checklist to exclude pregnancy at the time of contraceptive initiation among women with a negative urine pregnancy test.

Jaspur Min1, Christina Buckel1, Gina M Secura1, Jeffrey F Peipert1, Tessa Madden2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to measure the sensitivity and specificity of a six-item "pregnancy checklist" at excluding early- or luteal-phase pregnancy among women with a negative urine pregnancy test who were initiating contraception. STUDY
DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of the Contraceptive CHOICE Project, a prospective cohort study of 9256 women in the St. Louis region. Women who had a negative urine pregnancy test on the day of enrollment were included in this analysis. Women with a positive urine pregnancy test or without urine pregnancy testing were excluded. We identified all luteal-phase pregnancies that occurred among women with a negative urine pregnancy test. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value (NPV) and likelihood ratios of the pregnancy checklist for excluding luteal-phase pregnancies.
RESULTS: There were 6929 women included in this analysis; 69% of these women met at least one checklist criterion to exclude pregnancy ("negative screen"). There were 36 luteal-phase pregnancies (0.5%) subsequently diagnosed among women with a negative urine pregnancy test. The sensitivity and specificity of the checklist were 77.7% and 69.1%, respectively. The NPV of the checklist was 99.8% and the positive predictive value was 1.3%.
CONCLUSION: Among women with a negative urine pregnancy test, the pregnancy checklist can be used to safely exclude more than 99% of early pregnancies at the time of contraceptive initiation. IMPLICATIONS: In patients with a negative urine pregnancy test, a pregnancy checklist using six criteria based on patient history has high NPV in excluding early pregnancy. This checklist can be used to facilitate same-day initiation of contraceptive methods, including long-acting reversible contraception. Although the checklist had a high false positive rate, initiation of contraception should not be delayed in women with a "positive screen." Rather women who desire an intrauterine device or implant can be "bridged" with a shorter-acting method until pregnancy can be excluded.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Contraception; Contraceptive initiation; Pregnancy checklist; Pregnancy testing

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25218500      PMCID: PMC4267981          DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.08.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contraception        ISSN: 0010-7824            Impact factor:   3.375


  17 in total

Review 1.  Reproductive-endocrine point-of-care testing: current status and limitations.

Authors:  Mark A Cervinski; Ann M Gronowski
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.694

2.  A missed opportunity for care: two-visit IUD insertion protocols inhibit placement.

Authors:  Ashlee Bergin; Sigrid Tristan; Mishka Terplan; Melissa L Gilliam; Amy K Whitaker
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 3.375

Review 3.  Pregnancy outcomes with an IUD in situ: a systematic review.

Authors:  Dalia Brahmi; Maria W Steenland; Regina-Maria Renner; Mary E Gaffield; Kathryn M Curtis
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2011-08-16       Impact factor: 3.375

4.  Excluding pregnancy among women initiating antiretroviral therapy: efficacy of a family planning job aid.

Authors:  Kwasi Torpey; Lona Mwenda; Mushota Kabaso; Thierry Malebe; Patrick Makelele; Francis Mwema; Henry Phiri; Jonathan Mukundu; Mark A Weaver; John Stanback
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2010-05-14       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 5.  Use of a checklist to rule out pregnancy: a systematic review.

Authors:  Naomi K Tepper; Polly A Marchbanks; Kathryn M Curtis
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2012-10-04       Impact factor: 3.375

6.  Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception.

Authors:  Brooke Winner; Jeffrey F Peipert; Qiuhong Zhao; Christina Buckel; Tessa Madden; Jenifer E Allsworth; Gina M Secura
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-05-24       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Initiation and continuation rates seen in 2-year experience with Same Day injections of DMPA.

Authors:  Anita L Nelson; Tyler Katz
Journal:  Contraception       Date:  2006-10-31       Impact factor: 3.375

8.  The Contraceptive CHOICE Project: reducing barriers to long-acting reversible contraception.

Authors:  Gina M Secura; Jenifer E Allsworth; Tessa Madden; Jennifer L Mullersman; Jeffrey F Peipert
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-06-11       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Validation of a job aid to rule out pregnancy among family planning clients in Nicaragua.

Authors:  John Stanback; Kavita Nanda; Yolanda Ramirez; Wes Rountree; Sandra B Cameron
Journal:  Rev Panam Salud Publica       Date:  2008-02

10.  U.S. Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, 2013: adapted from the World Health Organization selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2nd edition.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Recomm Rep       Date:  2013-06-21
View more
  4 in total

1.  Meeting the Contraceptive Needs of a Community: Increasing Access to Long-Acting Reversible Contraception.

Authors:  Colleen McNicholas; Tessa Madden
Journal:  Mo Med       Date:  2017 May-Jun

Review 2.  Point-of-Care Diagnostics for Improving Maternal Health in South Africa.

Authors:  Tivani P Mashamba-Thompson; Benn Sartorius; Paul K Drain
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2016-08-31

3.  Case report: successful open resection of a symptomatic giant liver haemangioma during the second trimester of pregnancy.

Authors:  Angus Hann; Edoardo Osenda; Jon A Reade; Demetrius Economides; Dinesh Sharma
Journal:  J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2016-11-24

4.  Pregnancy Reasonably Excluded Guide (PREG) Evaluation of Pregnancy Status Before Contraceptive Procedures: Improved Availability of Same-Day Insertion.

Authors:  Danielle J O'Laughlin; Petra M Casey; Claire E Jensen; Margaret E Long
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes       Date:  2020-06-05
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.