Talk:Rapid strep test

Rapid strep test has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 27, 2015. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Rapid strep test appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 November 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that rapid strep tests may help to limit the use of antibiotics in viral illnesses?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rapid strep test.

Wikipedia

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Some of the treatment material might fit better on the "strep throat" page itself rather than on this "rapid strep test" page. Bjorn Helgaas (talk) 23:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitivity

References I'm seeing suggest that the sensitivity is more like 85-95% or 82-92%. Should this be updated? (see tables here [1] or abstract here [2]) N1ugl (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rapid strep test/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Looie496 (talk · contribs) 15:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find little to criticize here. The prose is clear and sufficiently comprehensive; the sourcing fully meets WP:MEDRS. The main suggestion I have is to include a brief discussion of the pertinent conclusions from http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/3/e001482.full ("Streptococcal pharyngitis in children: a meta-analysis of clinical decision rules and their clinical variables"). Looie496 (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading this, I have decided to pass it, as it appears to me to meet the GA criteria even though it could probably benefit from a bit more material. Looie496 (talk) 12:15, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation

The phrase "The sensitivity of lateral flow RSTs is somewhat lower at 65% to 80%.[2] Therefore, a positive result from such a test cannot be used to confirm GAS pharyngitis" implies that sensitivity is used to rule-in a diagnosis, but this is incorrect. Sensitivity is more suited to rule-out a diagnosis. Certainly the caveat of 5-20% carriage of strep in throats means the test cannot be used to confirm pharyngitis, but the current wording does not make sense. If somebody more knowledgeable agrees, I suggest that the quoted phrase be located after the sentence on the 5-20% carriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.33.239.182 (talk) 07:16, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]