PubMed · 16493905
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
James H Nichols. 2006. Tips for managing your POCT program.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16493905/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: Appropriate laboratory testing practices are a critical part of sexually transmitted disease (STD) control. GOAL: The goal of this study was to describe the type and volume of STD tests performed in public health laboratories in the United States in 2004. STUDY DESIGN: A web-based survey was made available to 144 members of the Association of Public Health Laboratories. RESULTS: One hundred fourteen laboratories responded (79%). Overall, 3,553,196 chlamydia tests and 3,461,151 gonorrhea tests were performed; 64.4% of chlamydia tests and 60.8% of gonorrhea tests were nucleic acid amplification tests. Ninety-four percent of laboratories performed syphilis testing. Few laboratories used type-specific tests for herpes simplex virus or used new tests for trichomoniasis, bacterial vaginosis, or human papillomavirus. CONCLUSIONS: This survey collected important data that can be used to monitor trends in STD testing practices in public health laboratories.
Clinical epidemiology generally uses the receiver operating characteristic curve to summarize the accuracy of a diagnostic test and to compare the relative performance of different tests. This paper extends this concept to include the utility gains and losses of true and false test outcomes over the range of a priori risk. A utility index is developed first in situations where test accuracy is exogenously given, second where the test cutpoint can be chosen by the clinician according to the patient's a priori risk and preferences. By integrating over the a priori risk range, we derive an overall measure for a test's performance weighted by utility gains and losses. An example in prenatal diagnostics finally illustrates the clinical uses of the novel approach. Integrating patients' preference into clinical decision making will lead to different cutpoints and different assessments of test performance compared to unweighted policies.
Clinical provocative tests of the neck, which position the neck and arm inorder to aggravate or relieve arm symptoms, are commonly used in clinical practice in patients with a suspected cervical radiculopathy. Their diagnostic accuracy, however, has never been examined in a systematic review. A comprehensive search was conducted in order to identify all possible studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria. A study was included if: (1) any provocative test of the neck for diagnosing cervical radiculopathy was identified; (2) any reference standard was used; (3) sensitivity and specificity were reported or could be (re-)calculated; and, (4) the publication was a full report. Two reviewers independently selected studies, and assessed methodological quality. Only six studies met the inclusion criteria, which evaluated five provocative tests. In general, Spurling's test demonstrated low to moderate sensitivity and high specificity, as did traction/neck distraction, and Valsalva's maneuver. The upper limb tension test (ULTT) demonstrated high sensitivity and low specificity, while the shoulder abduction test demonstrated low to moderate sensitivity and moderate to high specificity. Common methodological flaws included lack of an optimal reference standard, disease progression bias, spectrum bias, and review bias. Limitations include few primary studies, substantial heterogeneity, and numerous methodological flaws among the studies; therefore, a meta-analysis was not conducted. This review suggests that, when consistent with the history and other physical findings, a positive Spurling's, traction/neck distraction, and Valsalva's might be indicative of a cervical radiculopathy, while a negative ULTT might be used to rule it out. However, the lack of evidence precludes any firm conclusions regarding their diagnostic value, especially when used in primary care. More high quality studies are necessary in order to resolve this issue.