Talk:Medical test

A test may examine treatments/drugs/other factors than disease

I have tried a couple of times to make the definition broader to cover more of the range of medical tests. Since the phrasing has evidently not been acceptable to other editors, please help in coming up with phrasing that is clearer or more acceptable. The last version of the lead sentence that I tried was:

A medical test is a kind of medical procedure performed to detect, diagnose, or evaluate disease, disease processes, susceptibility, or treatment.

The "or treatment" part is what keeps being removed. An example of the type of test that isn't covered by the current definition would be a measure of coagulation factors (e.g. Prothrombin time) used in monitoring Warfarin anticoagulation therapy. i.e. evaluation of a treatment so can adjust the dose. This is not a disease or disease process that is being evaluated. (There may be no disease present - e.g. anticoagulation may be as a preventative measure for those with a pacemaker.) There are lots of other examples where the test checks for presence or amount of a nutritional, therapeutic or other agent, which may not be part of a disease. Now, how to say that clearly and concisely? Zodon (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The "or treatment" belongs, but it feels grammatically out of context when inserted in the sentence as such. It would work in a second sentence or two, though, where you explain about 'testing to determine dosage, ...nutritional, ...therapeutic, etc.' Maybe start with 'In addition, medical tests are used to... yada, yada'. Heh. It's hard sometimes to find the wording. --Rcej (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

would it make more sense to define it based on the sample material collected: we talked a bit about that idear here: Talk:List of organs of the human body Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Does it make sense to explain the way IUPAC( https://iupac.org/body/702/ ) makes and uses NPU codes(https://ifcc.org/ifcc-scientific-division/sd-committees/c-npu/npusearch/ )? As well as maybe how they are typically adapted to national guidelines(https://sundhedsdatastyrelsen.dk/-/media/sds/filer/rammer-og-retningslinjer/terminologi/npu/npu-manual.pdf , https://npu-terminology.org/npu-laboratory-terminology/ , https://sundhedsdatastyrelsen.dk/da/rammer-og-retningslinjer/om-terminologi/npu/standarder-og-litteratur-npu ) as this seems to be the closest thing to an overview of all lab tests currently available in a clinical setting? And like you only have to explain how the coding work, not every single code 128.0.73.13 (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Alternative classification

The following classification was found in the article of diagnostic test, but it appears to refer to medical tests in general, and therefore I linked that article to this one instead. The list is found below, but, in my point of view, its entries should be sorted into the multimodal classification system found here in medical test. Any assistance in this task is appreciated.

Types of medical tests Consulting room tests auscultation, including listening with a stethoscope weighing, and measuring height and girth measuring blood pressure taking the patient's pulse breath tests reflex tests eye examination ophthalmoscopy hearing test digital rectal examination vaginal examination More invasive examinations requiring sterile procedures biopsies lumbar puncture Requiring laboratory analysis Urine tests Stool tests Saliva tests Hair tests Blood tests Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) Complete blood count (CBC) Comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP) Arterial blood gas (ABG) Genetic_testing Requiring microscopy Smear tests such as Pap smears Requiring elaborate medical equipment X-rays barium enema intravenous pyelogram (IVP test) functional MRI endoscopy colposcopy blood test

Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

@Mikael Häggström:I think this type of classification is interesting also because it's more practical. It's a classification based on the tools/hospital departments used. It makes sense since the tool used can be very important for the patient (in term of discomfort, price etc...). Linuxo (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

How mutually exclusive do we want the categories to be, because I feel like Biopsy for example could be under:

Requiring elaborate medical equipment, Requiring laboratory analysis as well as More invasive examinations requiring sterile procedures

so what would the rules be for adding new tests that haven't been invented yet when they come about? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

As I see it the things we can group tests according to is either; Common name, test code(local or the one of the onces made by one of the many international organisations), ICD code so like the diease(s) it tests for, the tools used to collect the sample, the tools used to analyse the the sample, who analyses it, or what clinical specialy is ussally interest in the result. - but non of these are very good guesses at a unique identidier. So right now the best option seems to be making a sortable list, where people can choose themselves what they need no?

Categories does not per say have to be very mutually exclusive(if we where to draw the vann diagram of medical tests), but they should be easy to navigate(which this one is, so that is very nice) but also able to accomodate the new tests we want to be able to do in the future.

Another thing that makes this tricky is in some clinices the compiled answer from 3 lab tests counts as 1 test and in other they are seen as 3 different tests. How do we decide when something is one and multiple tests? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Challenges of Grouping Medical Tests:

• Clinicians Bundle Tests: MTA’s and Bio-analysts often group tests to make the doctors job easier.

• Multiple Audiences: These groupings need to be relevant for various users (doctors, patients, insurers, etc.).

• Balancing Transparency and Simplicity: Patients need easy access to their data but shouldn't be overwhelmed.

Solutions:

• Multiple Views: Offer different interfaces based on user roles (patient, doctor, etc.). maybe we could have a list of boxes which could be checked of, where you can check of one of either: --- an MD, a clinical software developer, an MTA, a patient, an insurance company, a wealthfare state official or a private person researching test. --- and then you can only check off one and then the list resorts/regroups itself every time one of these are clicked?

• Data Access Levels: Provide patients control over data granularity (basic overview vs. deep dive).

• Empathy Through Design: Consider how different users interpret the information.

Role of Wikipedia: Accurate health information on Wikipedia empowers patients and complements healthcare systems. This version clarifies the main points: the challenge of grouping tests for diverse audiences and the need for solutions that balance transparency with simplicity. It also highlights the importance of Wikipedia in health information. A lot of people walk around with the fear of the surveillance state, which can sometimes be a challenge when trying to provide medical care. Thus, it needs to be very clear that all of these tests and data hereabout is so that the patient can more easily surveil the state or service provider. Sometimes people also talk about a reverse surveillance state. Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Evaluation-section

I specified the evaluation-section as "Monitoring" and removed the other aspects mentioned in that section because they were not clearly distinct from diagnostic tests, and the reference didn't clearly point out any difference either. [1] Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to Merge In vitro diagnostics into Medical Test

Organisation of medical test pages

There are already several overlapping pages covering types of medical tests: Clinical chemistry, clinical laboratory, Molecular diagnostics, as well as pages listing them by use (Screening (medicine), Monitoring (medicine))

The risk is that we create a new encyclopaedia entry for each one - regarding it as a notable attested topic - and because the topics overlap heavily reproduce much of the same content.

I'm not about to propose a big re-organisation, but folding IVD into medical tests would help.

Lack of Content

The IVD page has existed since 2006, but is still a stub; the only content it contains is a long quoted definition and a few examples.

That is by itself, evidence of overlap. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

When you look at how regulators define "in vitro diagnostics", you find that they don't regulate any other kind of diagnostics. In short, and at the risk of Wikipedia:Original research, it looks like "in vitro diagnostics" is jargon for "the kind of diagnostics we regulate". In other words, it was always more of a definition than a topic anyway.

Move to Wiktionary?

If apt, it would be good to move the lede to Wiktionary.

Ian McDonald (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge Note

Am merging now, mainly by adding more info about "in vitro diagnostics" to the "by method" section.

I am not merging:

• the long quote about regulation of IVD devices
• [2] - because it is not needed as citation and backs nothing up
• Immunoassay - too narrow in relevance; is a molecular diagnostics technique
• Reference ranges for blood tests - very narrow indeed; but the new page links to blood tests

I added it to Wiktionary but MGlovesFun deleted the definition - based on the Lede - as simply wrong and not idiomatic. See [discussion on Wiktionary:User_Talk:MGlovesFun]

Ian McDonald (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge "diagnostic test" to here, medical test

There was an article, diagnostic test. I just made it a redirect to this article.

• Diagnostic test, 30 June 2016 archive version

See the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diagnostic test.

I am not merging any content from that older version to here, because I do not feel that any of the content there is good enough to be moved here. In particular, that information is mostly without references. The references which are used are low quality.

Anyone might make a new "diagnostic test" article with better sources. A new article might have a medical focus, or might be diagnostic tests for machine repair, software, or any other field which uses diagnostic processes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

would it make sense to also kind of merge: Category:Blood tests and List of medical tests somehow? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Direct to consumer testing and regulatory landscape

Given the recent meltdown with Theranos and the growing availability and use of direct-to-consumer lab testing as part of consumer-driven healthcare(see graph in 2016 article), it seems like we should do a better job covering this area. I don't have time right now but I'm setting myself a reminder for mid-2017 to come back to this.

There are also some weird players in the market who are not direct-to-consumer such as Doctor's Data and Geneva Diagnostics (formally called the Great Smokies Diagnostic Laboratory (pioneer of "laboratory functional testing"- which seem to cater towards rather unconventional (i.e., alternative / weakly proven) diagnostic tests and treatments. Surprisingly, we don't have an article on Geneva Diagnostics despite the fact that it seems to be much larger than Doctor's Data (with revenue probably at least $100m / year)- seems a bit tricky to find critical analysis of it though, need to search for Great Smokies instead. II | (t - c) 07:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Medical test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211100230/http://www.annals.org:80/content/155/8/529.abstract to http://www.annals.org/content/155/8/529.abstract

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Footnote 3 is dead

I tried to follow the link for footnote 3 and I got a page telling me the page had moved or no longer existed. Shmeebers (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)