Did You Know That 70% of Medical Decisions Are Based On Lab Test Results?

L

Lon

Well-known Member
Location
Central California
Many diseases and conditions can be caught and treated early before they develop into chronic & potentially fatal conditions or diseases.
 

May be a good time to ask those of you knowledgeable: I have had CBC work done by at least 4 different labs. Many of the "tolerance bands" ranges differ from lab to lab, by as much as 10% or more. To give examples, I'll have to dig out a few result sheets, but right now, what can be said about one lab's result indicating "out of range" by 5%, whereas the other lab allows a much broader range, and the same reading with them is WITHIN range? Whose do you use?

In my case, my doctor scheduled a bone marrow biopsy, 10 years ago. I refused it, based on what I said above. Would you have submitted to the big needle? (And, had to pay for it, no insurance). imp
 

There has been many times that I have equated the body and health issues to that of my automobile. So, using that mentality, this would be like hooking up the analyzer to my car to determine what the problem is and hoping that something shows up, so it can be repaired. Same with tests. For example, hypothetically speaking, if I have a severe pain in my lower left abdomen and it won't go away and I go see a doctor, he may order blood work and a CAT scan. If nothing shows up, he may progress to the next step by treating what he "thinks" it may be. Like maybe a kidney stone or diverticulitis, or whatever. After that, it becomes finding the problem by process of elimination. Same with a car. I have a knock in my engine. They put it on an analyzer and nothing shows up and there are no codes to check. The mechanic replaces a part that he "thinks" may be the issue. Even if replacing the part isn't the problem, the owner is still paying for the part and labor. If that doesn't fix it, he continues down the same road of replacing parts by process of elimination. If after a few or in some cases, several hundreds of dollars, he still can't find the problem, the owner pulls the plug and says, "That's enough already." Now, I have a $600.00 bill and I also still have the knock. So, I either put up with it, or unlike my body, I can trade it in for another car and this issue can become someone else's problem. Sounds dumb, I know, but it is in some ways comparable.
 
oldman said:
There has been many times that I have equated the body and health issues to that of my automobile. So, using that mentality, this would be like hooking up the analyzer to my car to determine what the problem is and hoping that something shows up, so it can be repaired. Same with tests. For example, hypothetically speaking, if I have a severe pain in my lower left abdomen and it won't go away and I go see a doctor, he may order blood work and a CAT scan. If nothing shows up, he may progress to the next step by treating what he "thinks" it may be. Like maybe a kidney stone or diverticulitis, or whatever. After that, it becomes finding the problem by process of elimination. Same with a car. I have a knock in my engine. They put it on an analyzer and nothing shows up and there are no codes to check. The mechanic replaces a part that he "thinks" may be the issue. Even if replacing the part isn't the problem, the owner is still paying for the part and labor. If that doesn't fix it, he continues down the same road of replacing parts by process of elimination. If after a few or in some cases, several hundreds of dollars, he still can't find the problem, the owner pulls the plug and says, "That's enough already." Now, I have a $600.00 bill and I also still have the knock. So, I either put up with it, or unlike my body, I can trade it in for another car and this issue can become someone else's problem. Sounds dumb, I know, but it is in some ways comparable.
Click to expand...

Yep... It's pretty much like that.
 
Lon said:
Many diseases and conditions can be caught and treated early before they develop into chronic & potentially fatal conditions or diseases.
Click to expand...

Lon, I am sure that you can remember that at one time, screenings and having arbitrary tests done by doctors were taboo by the insurance companies. Then someone wised up and thought if doctors could catch a problem in its early stage they would maybe be able to save thousands of dollars and lives and in some cases, tens of thousands of dollars. Like, if a person had chest pains, the doctor would perhaps order a stress test, one of the types of cardiograms or a heart catheterization. Putting in a stent is much less expensive and invasive then doing a bypass.

Also, having routine tests; colonoscopy, mammograms, internals, routine blood work, abdominal aortic aneurysm, prostate exam, etc., has also saved many lives and probably hundreds of millions of $$ for insurance companies. I would certainly rather put up with a colonoscopy over having half of my bowel removed and having to wear a colostomy bag the rest of my life.
 
Last edited:
It's a fine like that docs have to walk. Lab tests are a great tool, but how far does one go based on an abnormal lab value.. For example PSA. So many things can affect the value, cancer being only one.. most men with abnormal PSA values do not have cancer, yet... does that mean that a more invasive procedure like a prostate biopsy should be skipped.. Should the PSA just be monitored? Medicine is as much an art as a science.
 
Imp!! Not having a bone marrow biopsy because of your concern over variances in test results is not the smartest decision. You are looking for perfection and it doesn't exist in medicine. Had I not had a bone marrow biopsy in 2007 to confirm a diagnosis of a rare form of Lymphoma which was successfully treated, I doubt that I'd still be alive.
 
imp said:
May be a good time to ask those of you knowledgeable: I have had CBC work done by at least 4 different labs. Many of the "tolerance bands" ranges differ from lab to lab, by as much as 10% or more. To give examples, I'll have to dig out a few result sheets, but right now, what can be said about one lab's result indicating "out of range" by 5%, whereas the other lab allows a much broader range, and the same reading with them is WITHIN range? Whose do you use?

In my case, my doctor scheduled a bone marrow biopsy, 10 years ago. I refused it, based on what I said above. Would you have submitted to the big needle? (And, had to pay for it, no insurance). imp
Click to expand...

I'd say you were very very LUCKY. That is not a decision I would have made.
 
Wow, there is a lab within 4 miles of my house. I'm glad you don't have to draw your own blood.:eewwk: I may just give that a try one day. Thanks, Josiah.
 
QuickSilver said:
Of course lab values are a huge part of diagnosing.. what do you want them to use.. telepathy?
Click to expand...

I do not understand your question. Given that age and sex are entered into the equation, why would, say, blood sugar level limits (upper) be listed as 100 by one lab report, 115 by another, 120 by yet another? imp
 
Because that span is insignificant.. A spread of that small amount means NOTHING...it depends on the equipment the lab uses. IF a lab was saying that the upper limit of normal was 200 I would worry about it.. but a 20 point spread? It's not anything that would cause health problems, and certainly shouldn't cause anyone to distrust lab work.
 
WhatInThe said:
ie production line medicine.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean. How are MDs supposed to know if a person is diabetic, or what the glucose level of a diabetic IS without the Blood Glucose test? There was a time they tasted the urine of patients.. you aren't suggesting we go back to that are you?
 
QuickSilver said:
Not sure what you mean. How are MDs supposed to know if a person is diabetic, or what the glucose level of a diabetic IS without the Blood Glucose test? There was a time they tasted the urine of patients.. you aren't suggesting we go back to that are you?
Click to expand...

A lot of tests are open to interpretation and might not be as clear cut as a glucose test. A saw a story over the last year where a women was diagnosed and treated for years for MS for I think it was and the drugs screwed her up. Somebody misread a mri or brain scan. Mistook a extra tissue as a lesion/sign of ms. Some doctors order tests before a complaint trying to play gotcha with a disease, especially with well insured patients.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top