AI Article Synopsis
- Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) are widely regarded as the best option for diagnosing infectious diseases because they are more affordable and quicker than in the past.
- However, there are concerns about whether these tests might be overly sensitive, their appropriateness for all situations, and if they undermine the importance of clinical judgment in treatment.
- The article aims to investigate these issues using specific examples of NAATs related to Group A Streptococcus, Influenza, SARS-CoV-2, respiratory panels, and sexually transmitted diseases.
Article Abstract
It has become commonplace to assume that nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) represent the gold standard for all infectious disease diagnostic testing. This proposition has become increasingly entrenched recently, as these tests can now be done, in comparison to even just a few years ago, relatively inexpensively and with rapid analytic turnaround times. Many can even be performed at the point of care by individuals without technical backgrounds. But there may be a dark underside to this proposition. Could these tests be too sensitive? Are they always "fit for purpose"? Should they trump clinical judgement? Do they have untoward impacts on antimicrobial therapy? Could the profit motive - by manufacturers and by laboratories - be fueling the explosive expansion of NAATs? In this article, we will explore these questions in regard to several specific NAAT examples - Group A Streptococcus, Influenza, SARS-CoV-2, respiratory panels, and sexually transmitted disease panels.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2022.04.013 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!