PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15283164

[Self-testing using by OTC test kits and mail testing services--it's future prospect and problems].

Abstract

Under the certification of the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, OTC medicine (Over the counter medicine: medicine for general tests) such as test strips for urine protein and urine glucose as well as urinary pregnancy tests are presently available at pharmacies and drug stores for use as self-testing by ordinary people. Meanwhile, mail health check-up testing services have recently been making a rapid progress in the market. In this system, users purchase "sample collecting kits" at large-scale pharmacies, directly or indirectly, and then after collecting samples (urine, blood, etc) by themselves, they put the samples onto the mail testing service process consisting of the linkage of convenience stores--couriers--testing agencies affiliated with clinical facilities. The samples are tested in the testing agencies and the results of the testing are returned to individual user. This innovative system allows users to control and manage their own health conditions. Future prospects and problems over the system will be discussed here.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kiichi Ito. 2004. [Self-testing using by OTC test kits and mail testing services--it's future prospect and problems].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15283164/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Impact of adjustment for quality on results of metaanalyses of diagnostic accuracy.

BACKGROUND: We examined whether and to what extent different strategies of defining and incorporating quality of included studies affect the results of metaanalyses of diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: We evaluated the methodological quality of 487 diagnostic-accuracy studies in 30 systematic reviews with the QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic-Accuracy Studies) checklist. We applied 3 strategies that varied both in the definition of quality and in the statistical approach to incorporate the quality-assessment results into metaanalyses. We compared magnitudes of diagnostic odds ratios, widths of their confidence intervals, and changes in a hypothetical clinical decision between strategies. RESULTS: Following 2 definitions of quality, we concluded that only 70 or 72 of 487 studies were of "high quality". This small number was partly due to poor reporting of quality items. None of the strategies for accounting for differences in quality led systematically to accuracy estimates that were less optimistic than ignoring quality in metaanalyses. Limiting the review to high-quality studies considerably reduced the number of studies in all reviews, with wider confidence intervals as a result. In 18 reviews, the quality adjustment would have resulted in a different decision about the usefulness of the test. CONCLUSIONS: Although reporting the results of quality assessment of individual studies is necessary in systematic reviews, reader wariness is warranted regarding claims that differences in methodological quality have been accounted for. Obstacles for adjusting for quality in metaanalyses are poor reporting of design features and patient characteristics and the relatively low number of studies in most diagnostic reviews.

Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures↗