PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16447685

[Current status for OTC examination (test)].

Takeyoshi Urata·Ikunosuke Sakurabayashi
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Upgrading and expanding of preventive measures for lifestyle-related diseases is an urgent national priority because they are recognized as the most important health risks by both the general population and government. With such a social background, the spread of self-medication by self-test is eagerly awaited by health-oriented individuals. In this paper, legal position of OTC test reagent, OTC test equipment and remote healthcare as current status of OTC test are explained, reference is made to the current status of their diffusion here in Japan, and some typical examples of "self-collection sample and corresponding OTC test item" are clearly described. In consideration of the large number of potential patients with folk disease such as metabolic syndrome, drug stores should be an accessible and convenient spot for Japanese people to enjoy the benefit of OTC test by obtaining test kits for such diseases.

Explore related subjects

Diagnostic Techniques and ProceduresDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansJapanPostal ServicePreventive Health ServicesReagent Kits, DiagnosticRisk ManagementSelf CareSpecimen HandlingEnglish AbstractJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Takeyoshi Urata, Ikunosuke Sakurabayashi. 2005. [Current status for OTC examination (test)].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16447685/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

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↗