{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,8]],"date-time":"2026-07-08T05:32:24Z","timestamp":1783488744893,"version":"3.55.0"},"reference-count":14,"publisher":"BMJ","issue":"1","content-domain":{"domain":["bmj.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["BMJ Sex Reprod Health"],"accepted":{"date-parts":[[2017,10,30]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2018,1]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                  <jats:title>Background<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>We introduced a single-window low-sensitivity urine pregnancy test (LSPT) to replace a double-window LSPT (both 1000 IU hCG) for self-assessment of the outcome of early medical abortion (EMA) (\u226463 days gestation) 2 weeks later. We wished to compare assessment of outcomes of EMA with each LSPT.<\/jats:p>\n               <\/jats:sec>\n               <jats:sec>\n                  <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>A retrospective review of the outcomes of EMA during 10 months' use of the double-window LSPT and the subsequent 10 months' use of the single-window LSPT to compare (i) detection of ongoing pregnancies and (ii) false-positive and invalid results with each LSPT.<\/jats:p>\n               <\/jats:sec>\n               <jats:sec>\n                  <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>492 and 555 women self-assessed the outcome of their EMA with the double- and single-window LSPTs, respectively. Ongoing pregnancies were uncommon and occurred in 4\/1047 women (0.4%). Two of these four women did not conduct a LSPT as they presented before the LSPT was due with scant bleeding or continuing pregnancy symptoms. False-positive LSPT results occurred in 6 (1.2%) and 19 (3.4%) double- and single-window LSPT tests, respectively (P=0.0244). Invalid results were reported in 18 (3.6%) and 6 (1.1%) of double- and single-window LSPT groups, respectively (P=0.01).<\/jats:p>\n               <\/jats:sec>\n               <jats:sec>\n                  <jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:p>The introduction of the single-window LSPT has not impacted on the detection of ongoing pregnancy or on contact with the service due to a positive or invalid LSPT. Services could consider use of either LSPT but should also place emphasis on informing women about the clinical signs and symptoms that suggest failed abortion.<\/jats:p>\n               <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjsrh-2017-101868","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2017,11,25]],"date-time":"2017-11-25T20:10:15Z","timestamp":1511640615000},"page":"54-57","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/crossmarkpolicy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":13,"title":["Comparison of two low-sensitivity urine pregnancy tests for confirming the success of early medical abortion"],"prefix":"10.1136","volume":"44","author":[{"given":"Sarah Louise","family":"Millar","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Chalmers Sexual Health Clinic, Edinburgh, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Sharon Tracey","family":"Cameron","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Chalmers Sexual Health Clinic, Edinburgh, UK"},{"name":"Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"239","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2017,11,25]]},"reference":[{"key":"2025090222021838000_44.1.54.1","unstructured":"Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The care of women requestinginduced abortion. Guideline number 7. 2011. www.rcog.org.uk (accessed 16 Jul 2017)."},{"key":"2025090222021838000_44.1.54.2","unstructured":"World Health Organization. Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems. 2nd edn. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 2012."},{"key":"2025090222021838000_44.1.54.3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/jfprhc-2011-100149"},{"key":"2025090222021838000_44.1.54.4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1097\/01.AOG.0000115511.14004.19"},{"key":"2025090222021838000_44.1.54.5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"29","DOI":"10.1016\/j.contraception.2014.03.016","article-title":"RU OK? The acceptability and feasibility of remote technologies for follow-up after early medical abortion","volume":"90","author":"Bracken","year":"2014","journal-title":"Contraception"},{"key":"2025090222021838000_44.1.54.6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"67","DOI":"10.1016\/j.contraception.2011.11.010","article-title":"Telephone follow-up and self-performed urine pregnancy testing after early medical abortion: a service evaluation","volume":"86","author":"Cameron","year":"2012","journal-title":"Contraception"},{"key":"2025090222021838000_44.1.54.7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.contraception.2014.01.010"},{"key":"2025090222021838000_44.1.54.8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(14)61054-0"},{"key":"2025090222021838000_44.1.54.9","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"88","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000000050","article-title":"Acceptability and feasibility of phone follow-up after early medical abortion in Vietnam: a randomized controlled trial","volume":"123","author":"Ngoc","year":"2014","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"2025090222021838000_44.1.54.10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.contraception.2009.08.008"},{"key":"2025090222021838000_44.1.54.11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.contraception.2014.09.009"},{"key":"2025090222021838000_44.1.54.12","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e537","DOI":"10.1016\/S2214-109X(15)00150-3","article-title":"Self-assessment of the outcome of early medical abortion versus clinic follow-up in India: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial","volume":"3","author":"Iyengar","year":"2015","journal-title":"Lancet Glob Health"},{"key":"2025090222021838000_44.1.54.13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0179600","article-title":"Is self-assessment of medical abortion using a low-sensitivity pregnancy test combined with a checklist and phone text messages feasible in South African primary healthcare settings? A randomized trial","volume":"12","author":"Constant","year":"2017","journal-title":"PLoS One"},{"key":"2025090222021838000_44.1.54.14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"442","DOI":"10.1016\/j.contraception.2016.12.004","article-title":"Serial multilevel urine pregnancy testing to assess medical abortion outcome: a meta-analysis","volume":"95","author":"Raymond","year":"2017","journal-title":"Contraception"}],"container-title":["BMJ Sexual &amp; Reproductive Health"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/syndication.highwire.org\/content\/doi\/10.1136\/bmjsrh-2017-101868","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,9,3]],"date-time":"2025-09-03T05:02:28Z","timestamp":1756875748000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/jfprhc.bmj.com\/lookup\/doi\/10.1136\/bmjsrh-2017-101868"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2017,11,25]]},"references-count":14,"journal-issue":{"issue":"1","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2017,12,29]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2018,1]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1136\/bmjsrh-2017-101868"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmjsrh-2017-101868","relation":{},"ISSN":["2515-1991","2515-2009"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2515-1991","type":"print"},{"value":"2515-2009","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2017,11,25]]}}}