A powerful debunk for some pregnancy hearsay

[Heather]

Many of our users dealing with pregnancy anxiety or fears -- most of whom have had normal periods and negative pregnancy tests, some of whom have never even had the kind of contact needed for pregnancy to even be possible -- report that when they obsessively scour the internet, they keep hitting up on "a ton" of people reporting that they had negative tests, but were pregnant. It's always been clear, because we know how effective these tests are when used properly and how pregnancy works, some people making these reports are clearly being dishonest or are otherwise misrepresenting their situation in some way.

I was just reading the current copy of Contraception (a medical journal focused on Contraception), and came across a study done with over 6,000 women seeking an IUD, all of whom already just had negative pregnancy tests. The purpose of the study was so make IUD insertion easier: some policies require that even with a negative test, those wanting one wait to come back until after they have had their next period, just to be double-double sure they are not pregnant already.

But, as the study shows, there is no need for that. Because with just a six-point checklist alone, they, and the CDC and other places who have used this list with patients, nearly 100% of those who went through it still were not pregnant, and that is not 100% most likely only because a couple folks were not answering the questions honestly, or didn't recall things correctly.

So, what is that checklist? (It's listed in full in this publication, if you'd like to see it elsewhere: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/rr/rr6205.pdf I have bolded he parts of it that apply to most of our users, whereas the non-bolded bit generally won't, since most users freaking about pregnancy like this have not recently been pregnant and miscarried, terminated or delivered that pregnancy.)

This:

A provider can be reasonably certain that a woman is not pregnant if she has no symptoms or signs of pregnancy and meets any one of the following criteria:
is ≤7 days after the start of normal menses,
has not had sexual intercourse since the start of last normal menses,
has been using a reliable method of contraception correctly and consistently,
is ≤7 days after spontaneous or induced abortion,
is within 4 weeks postpartum,
is fully or nearly fully breastfeeding (exclusively breastfeeding or the vast majority [≥85%] of feeds are breastfeeds), amenorrheic, and <6 months postpartum;

In other words, even WITHOUT a negative test (but shown to be accurate as a screening list for pregnancy because those studied were tested and did get negative results), so long as someone had a period at least a week ago, did NOT have sexual intercourse, specifically, since their last period and, in general, when they are engaging in sex with a partner, use a reliable method of contraception -- like condoms, the pill, etc. -- correctly and consistently (in other words, all the time, and as directed)?

THAT PERSON CAN BE SURE THEY ARE NOT PREGNANT.

And when put to the test, literally, we know that this is what is real and true.

There aren't a lot of studies that have information we can apply to folks convinced they are pregnant despite negative tests and periods, or without even having sex, so I was excited to see this, which had information not gathered for that purpose, but which very much can be used for it.

So, just a sumup, in case it wasn't clear. Those of us educated in this stuff know this already, but this study (and there are others similar to it, with identical results) clearly shows that:
1) pregnancy tests, used properly, are reliable. When they are negative, if used properly -- not taken sooner than the directions say they can be, without enough urine, or any of the other things a test includes as issues in its instructions) -- that is because the person taking one is not pregnant.
2) With or without a test, even just when people have recently had a menstrual period, have not had intercourse since that menstrual period, and, in general, use a reliable method of contraception correctly and consistently? ALSO NOT PREGNANT.

This has been studied, y'all. In studies like this one I am talking about here (which is, Performance of a checklist to exclude pregnancy at the time of contraceptive initiation among women with a negative urine pregnancy test,
Min J, Buckel C, Secura GM, Peipert JF, Madden T, 2014), it's been shown clearly that if you've the idea people can take test after tests and have it be negative and they're still pregnant, or not have sex (nor be raped/assaulted) and be pregnant, or have periods as usual and be pregnant, that idea is simply false.

[Fender909]

This is really cool. It's nice to see things like this. I, personally, have been dealing with anxiety issues and I think i project that onto the thought/fear of being pregnant and then look for symptoms. That only scares me. But technically, I didn't have a risk to begin with, took took a negative pregnancy test after a little over four weeks, and I've also had two periods since. But even lately I can't get over the fear. So I think some people need to figure out what they're really scared of (I know I do) and deal with that so they can move past this fear.

[Heather]

Hope you have been doing okay, Fender. You' ve been in my thoughts!