ArticleFertility and sterility2026
Home pregnancy test sensitivity by test timing and cycle length with real-world use among pregnancy planners who conceived.
Article in Fertility and sterility, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the sensitivity of home pregnancy tests with real-world use by day of testing and cycle length among pregnancy planners who conceived.
designPregnancy Study Online (PRESTO, 2018-2024) is an internet-based prospective cohort of pregnancy planners in North America who are not using fertility treatments to conceive. SUBJECTS: We analyzed data from 19,908 pregnancy tests from 5,979 participants who detected a pregnancy with a home pregnancy test. EXPOSURE: Participants reported day-specific information about pregnancy testing and test results from 4 days before expected menses through 4 days after expected menses. Participants also provided the date of their last menstrual period, their most recent menstrual cycle length, and cycle regularity.
main outcome measuresWe calculated pregnancy test sensitivity by timing of test in relation to expected menstrual period and cycle length. Because most participants did not test daily during the observed window, we imputed missing tests using participants' known test results and binomial distributions specific to the day of testing and cycle length determined by predicted probabilities from generalized linear models on the basis of observed tests. We present the mean probability of a positive test by day of testing and participant-reported cycle length.
resultsMedian cycle length was 28 days (interquartile range: 27-31 days) and 83.3% of participants reported regular cycles. Among participants with regular cycles, we found a relatively high probability of false negative tests with testing 2, 3, and 4 days before expected menses (12.7%, 21.4%, 46.4%, respectively). The probability of having a positive test increased with cycle day in a supralinear fashion, with over 99% of participants having a positive test by 4 days after the day of expected menses. Longer cycle length was associated with incremental increases in pregnancy test sensitivity, conditional on day of testing. Differences in test sensitivity by cycle length were most pronounced among early testers.
conclusionReal-world estimates of home pregnancy test sensitivity by day of testing and cycle length can empower individuals to make informed decisions about when to start testing. Sensitivity was lower than anticipated before expected menses. For any given day of testing, test sensitivity was higher for individuals with longer menstrual cycle lengths.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.