Talk:Mantoux test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Mantoux Test

Is an individual who tests positively on the Mantoux Test - 15 MM and who needs to pass the TB Test National disqualified when emloyment opportunities call for a TB Test?

The occupational health department may require a chest X-ray and sputum samples if possible. JFW | T@lk 16:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The Mantoux test only indicates that a person has or has had the infection, not that he or she is infectious (which is sometimes referred to as being "active" or having "active TB" or "infectious TB"). The exam forms that I have seen all request certification that the patient is not infectious... this usually requires a chest x-ray and a history. Although I have never had a request for a sputum test, I suppose that it might be requested in certain circumstances (i.e.: if the prospective employee will be dealing with very immune-suppressed patients).

[edit] Annual CXR in lieu of Mantoux

As an aside, an annual chest x-ray used to be requested in lieu of a PPD for anyone who had a history of a positive TB test. That is no longer the case, as a repeat x-ray is only indicated if a patient is symptomatic (persistent cough, night sweats/fevers, or weight loss). Carl 00:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

That is only true in the US and not elsewhere. The UK recommendations still allow for regular CXR as an alternative to the mantoux test.--Gak 15:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with tuberculin

I have removed the request for discussion about a merge with Tuberculin, as Tuberculin has been changed, making such a merge no longer needed. Carl 00:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

*The merge request was put back. Since there already seems to be a talk consensus to keep two separate article,  I removed the merge proposal and added a disambiguate link so that people looking for the TB test will be directed to Mantoux test.  I know there is a see-also, but this seemed like a compromise to the merge proposal. Thatcher131 14:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of Mantoux test

One issue that I was curious about that was not mentioned was the reliability of the test. I believe that this is a screening type test (i.e. a cheap one with a high degree of false positives and a low degree of false negatives), but was curious to know if any contributors hae the actual rates available. --199.158.144.234 22:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Mantoux test is a screening test for latent TB and is of no use in diagnosing active TB. The trouble is that there is no gold standard test for diagnosing latent TB against which the Mantoux can be compared, so interpretation varies from country to country. Someone who is "diagnosed" with latent TB in the US may very well be said to be negative in the UK.--Gak 15:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tuberculin skin testing

Link removed to "Tuberculin skin testing" because that article has been deleted and merged with other articles.

[edit] Section headings

I have added section headings because the discussion pages is getting a bit big.--Gak 15:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Tuberculin skin test

This article talks about much more than just the Mantoux test. Why not move to tuberculin skin test and redirect Mantoux to that link?--Gak 19:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mantoux vs. Pirquet

The introduction to this article presents Pirquet testing as a synonym to Mantoux testing. In Norway an older testing procedure known here as the Pirquet test was in use until recently (2004 according to no:Tuberkulintest). It involved making two small scratches to the inside of the lower arm and dripping tuberculin solution onto them, somewhat like allergy scratch testing. Is this a Norwegian-only terminology? Otherwise the wording should be changed to reflect the difference (although the skin response and interpretation of the two tests are similar). --shingra (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)