Diagnostechs Lab false reading or mistake.

[m_ob]

The saliva tests I had done with diagnostechs Inc. ,prior to getting the two most sensitive intestinal inflammation tests possible, read that I was possitive for gluten, casein, soy, and egg protein antibodies. To confirm this my doctor wanted the anti TTG blood draw along with endomyseial bodies, which are the most accurate tests to diagnos any intestinal prolems including gluten intolerance.
Diagnostechs results read:
Total Intestinal SIgA (Stool) 11 Low <400 Normal 400-800 Elavated >800

Milk (Casein) Ab SIgA Positive

Soy (Protein) Positive

Gliadin Ab, SIgA 57 Boderline 13-15
Positive >15

The Blood work read negative for the TTG antibodies and the endomysial, meaning there is no inflammation in the gut. My physician said with the results of these two tests negative, there should be no reason to considere possible problems here.
Celiac would have explained the constant hunger, but I am not nutrient deficient in any other test.
So now I'm wondering, is Diagnostechs a legit lab even? It sure does not seem this way after this.

 

[m_ob]

Here is this also from Quackwatch.com

Laboratories Doing Nonstandard Laboratory Tests
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Most of the laboratories listed below cater to practitioners who engage in nonstandard practices. All of these labs perform one or more nonstandard tests. Most also perform various standard tests. When evaluating practitioners, we would regard routine use of any of these laboratories as an unfavorable sign.

AAL Reference Laboratories (AALRL)
Aeron Life Cycle Labs
Affinity Laboratory Technologies,
Altess Medical Laboratory
Age Diagnostic Laboratories
American Medical Testing Laboratories
Amscot Medical Labs
Anamol Laboratories
Antibody Assay Laboratories
Bio-Center Laboratory (BCL)
BioHealth Diagnostics
Biolab Medical Unit (UK)
Cellmate Wellness Systems (formerly Carbon Based Corporation)
Center for Complex Infectious Diseases
Diagnos-Techs
Doctor's Data
Great Plains Laboratory

 

[Jeton]

Here is this also from Quackwatch.com

Laboratories Doing Nonstandard Laboratory Tests
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Most of the laboratories listed below cater to practitioners who engage in nonstandard practices. All of these labs perform one or more nonstandard tests. Most also perform various standard tests. When evaluating practitioners, we would regard routine use of any of these laboratories as an unfavorable sign.

AAL Reference Laboratories (AALRL)
Aeron Life Cycle Labs
Affinity Laboratory Technologies,
Altess Medical Laboratory
Age Diagnostic Laboratories
American Medical Testing Laboratories
Amscot Medical Labs
Anamol Laboratories
Antibody Assay Laboratories
Bio-Center Laboratory (BCL)
BioHealth Diagnostics
Biolab Medical Unit (UK)
Cellmate Wellness Systems (formerly Carbon Based Corporation)
Center for Complex Infectious Diseases
Diagnos-Techs
Doctor's Data
Great Plains Laboratory

quack labs start at a n stop at g ?

 

[CubbieBlue]

Trust the labs your doctor ordered. I have had a very strong suspicion that most of the saliva mail order labs are bull. For the saliva test for cortisol they have you fill out a questionnaire? Why is this necessary?

It would be cool to have one person send the same lab test results in under two different names and see what they said.

 

[m_ob]

quack labs start at a n stop at g ?

no lol, just wanted to stress the Diagnostech Lab.

 

[m_ob]

Trust the labs your doctor ordered. I have had a very strong suspicion that most of the saliva mail order labs are bull. For the saliva test for cortisol they have you fill out a questionnaire? Why is this necessary?

It would be cool to have one person send the same lab test results in under two different names and see what they said.

Maybe we have just identified a million dollar industry scam. Would not be the first ones to stumble upon this.

 

[Michael Scally MD]

The saliva tests I had done with diagnostechs Inc. ,prior to getting the two most sensitive intestinal inflammation tests possible, read that I was possitive for gluten, casein, soy, and egg protein antibodies. To confirm this my doctor wanted the anti TTG blood draw along with endomyseial bodies, which are the most accurate tests to diagnos any intestinal prolems including gluten intolerance.
Diagnostechs results read:
Total Intestinal SIgA (Stool) 11 Low <400 Normal 400-800 Elavated >800

Milk (Casein) Ab SIgA Positive

Soy (Protein) Positive

Gliadin Ab, SIgA 57 Boderline 13-15
Positive >15

The Blood work read negative for the TTG antibodies and the endomysial, meaning there is no inflammation in the gut. My physician said with the results of these two tests negative, there should be no reason to considere possible problems here.
Celiac would have explained the constant hunger, but I am not nutrient deficient in any other test.
So now I'm wondering, is Diagnostechs a legit lab even? It sure does not seem this way after this.

It is hard to keep up with your testing, but you are on to something here. There are many problems associated with saliva testing. It is good for very few (very few) tests. In another thread, you mention your suspicion for the tests when you state you have absolutely no symptoms, etc. You were right to question the initial result. The blood results are to be trusted - for the reason you post and the correlation to the clinical picture. Unfortunately, this solves one problem but not the T. [Did you list all of the suspect labs? What is the link? - http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/nonstandard.html ]

 

[HeadDoc]

I didn't spend allot of time on that site. How were the data collected to draw the conclusion? I would hope that the author had more data that the association of the lab w. a doctor whose practice was atypical!

Remember that movie "Enemy of the State". The wife of the main character (Will Smith) states it very well; "Who is going to watch the watchers of the watchers?"

 

[Seekhelp]

I don't trust Quackwatch one bit or the author. He has a very shady background and is not even a doctor. I personally feel his one and only goal is to demean all alternative non-traditional treatments w/o consideration.

That said, I don't trust Diagnos-Techs either. I had the labs the original poster stated. A lot of these 'holistic' docs recommend this firm for testing. BUT, when I got the results back stating possible parasitic issues, the doc all of a sudden didn't feel compelled to use any real drug treatment. I'm guessing everyone comes back positive for gluten sensitivity on the panel.

There's a lot of provider mark-ups going on and captive pricing. Be careful. These labs won't even give a consumer a price for a lab test. The rep told me she'd lose her job for divulging a cost to me or even the tiered pricing. What that says to me is providers are making money to push tests their way and there's a referral system occurring.

The deal breaker for me is if the provider endorses a lab, they damn well better be sure to treat a positive result the lab finds or you're just screwing a patient.

I have found zero correlation with saliva testing for hormones vs. blood or 24 hr urine results. it's like night and day. Who do I believe? I do ask why insurance would reimburse for saliva labs though if they were absurdly off? Insurers aren't into paying for trash tests. The bottom line is someone's right and someone's wrong. Who though?

 

[Michael Scally MD]

I don't trust Quackwatch one bit or the author. He has a very shady background and is not even a doctor. I personally feel his one and only goal is to demean all alternative non-traditional treatments w/o consideration.

That said, I don't trust Diagnos-Techs either. I had the labs the original poster stated. A lot of these 'holistic' docs recommend this firm for testing. BUT, when I got the results back stating possible parasitic issues, the doc all of a sudden didn't feel compelled to use any real drug treatment. I'm guessing everyone comes back positive for gluten sensitivity on the panel.

There's a lot of provider mark-ups going on and captive pricing. Be careful. These labs won't even give a consumer a price for a lab test. The rep told me she'd lose her job for divulging a cost to me or even the tiered pricing. What that says to me is providers are making money to push tests their way and there's a referral system occurring.

The deal breaker for me is if the provider endorses a lab, they damn well better be sure to treat a positive result the lab finds or you're just screwing a patient.

I have found zero correlation with saliva testing for hormones vs. blood or 24 hr urine results. it's like night and day. Who do I believe? I do ask why insurance would reimburse for saliva labs though if they were absurdly off? Insurers aren't into paying for trash tests. The bottom line is someone's right and someone's wrong. Who though?

Good Post

Confucius: “A fool despises good counsel, but a wise man takes it to heart.”

[Confucius also says, “Baseball is wrong: man with four balls cannot walk.”]

 

[CubbieBlue]

I don't trust Quackwatch one bit or the author. He has a very shady background and is not even a doctor. I personally feel his one and only goal is to demean all alternative non-traditional treatments w/o consideration.

That said, I don't trust Diagnos-Techs either. I had the labs the original poster stated. A lot of these 'holistic' docs recommend this firm for testing. BUT, when I got the results back stating possible parasitic issues, the doc all of a sudden didn't feel compelled to use any real drug treatment. I'm guessing everyone comes back positive for gluten sensitivity on the panel.

There's a lot of provider mark-ups going on and captive pricing. Be careful. These labs won't even give a consumer a price for a lab test. The rep told me she'd lose her job for divulging a cost to me or even the tiered pricing. What that says to me is providers are making money to push tests their way and there's a referral system occurring.

The deal breaker for me is if the provider endorses a lab, they damn well better be sure to treat a positive result the lab finds or you're just screwing a patient.

I have found zero correlation with saliva testing for hormones vs. blood or 24 hr urine results. it's like night and day. Who do I believe? I do ask why insurance would reimburse for saliva labs though if they were absurdly off? Insurers aren't into paying for trash tests. The bottom line is someone's right and someone's wrong. Who though?

Just an anecdotal report against ZRT: I (maybe foolishly) did a saliva test through a HRT clinic in town and he charged me $200 for it. I later found out I could have ordered it direct for ~$130.

I put up a post on Crisler's board that I would really like to see how the lab results would react to one person doing a saliva test either on the same day or two consecutive days, filling out their questionnaire radically differently. I wouldn't want to drop $260 to do this myself, but would be more than willing to donate 10-20 bucks to a pool to get enough money to try this out and see the results.

Your question about insurance makes me wonder too. Any thoughts?

 

[m_ob]

Salivary tests of estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, melatonin, cortisol and DHEA have become available to consumers over the Internet. Some of these websites include a questionnaire to allow consumers to determine whether they need saliva testing, and a form that allows consumers to order these tests online. The results of these tests are purportedly used to determine the need prescriptions of DHEA, vitamins, herbs, phytoestrogens, and other anti-aging regimens.

The medical literature on salivary testing correlates salivary levels with serum levels, the gold standard measurement. However, the medical literature fails to demonstrate that salivary tests are appropriate for screening, diagnosing, or monitoring patients with menopause, osteoporosis, or other consequences of aging.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists outline the appropriate methods of screening and diagnosing menopause and osteoporosis. The primary test for menopause screening is serum FSH, for thyroid dysfunction serum TSH, and bone density measurement is the primary method of screening for osteoporosis. None of these guidelines indicates salivary testing as an appropriate method of screening, diagnosing, or monitoring these disorders.

According to available guidelines, primary hypoadrenalism (Addison’s disease) is suggested by a markedly elevated plasma adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) with low or normal serum cortisol. The diagnosis of adrenocortical insufficiency is established primarily by use of the rapid ACTH stimulation test, which involves assessment of the response of serum aldosterone and cortisol to ACTH infusion.

Furthermore, there is inadequate evidence of the value of measuring salivary components to guide prescription of "anti-aging" regimens. The clinical value of these tests depends not only on how well the salivary testing corresponds to some gold standard (i.e., a serum test), but also upon the evidence of the effectiveness of the particular intervention (anti-aging regimen) that would be prescribed based on the results of the salivary test. Meta-analyses of the literature have questioned the value of supplementation with DHEA and melatonin on improving patient outcomes.

According to a committee opinion by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG, 2005), there is no scientific evidence to support claims of increased safety or effectiveness for individualized estrogen or progesterone regimens prepared by compounding pharmacies. Furthermore, hormone therapy does not belong to a class of drugs with an indication for individualized dosing. The opinion by ACOG also pointed out that salivary hormone level testing used by proponents to 'tailor' this therapy isn't meaningful because salivary hormone levels vary within each woman depending on her diet, the time of day, the specific hormone being tested, and other variables.

A National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Art Conference Statement on Management of Menopausal Symptoms (2005) reached the following conclusions about salivary hormone testing and bioidential hormones: "Bioidentical hormones, often called 'natural' hormones, are treatments with individually compounded recipes of a variety of steroids in various dosage forms, with the composition and dosages based on a person’s salivary hormone concentration. These steroids may include estrone, estradiol, estriol, DHEA, progesterone, pregnenolone, and testosterone. There is a paucity of data on the benefits and adverse effects of these compounds."

An assessment by the Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement (2006) concluded: "Currently, there is insufficient evidence in the published scientific literature to permit conclusions concerning the use of salivary hormone testing for the diagnosis, treatment or monitoring of menopause and aging."

The North American Menopause Society (2005) has concluded: "Salivary testing is not considered to be a reliable measure of testosterone levels."

Klebanoff and colleagues (2008) examined if salivary progesterone (P) or estriol (E3) concentration at 16 to 20 weeks' gestation predicts preterm birth or the response to 17alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17OHPC). Baseline saliva was assayed for P and E3. Weekly salivary samples were obtained from 40 women who received 17OHPC and 40 who received placebo. Both low and high baseline saliva P and E3 were associated with a slightly increased risk of preterm birth. However, 17OHPC prevented preterm birth comparably, regardless of baseline salivary hormone concentrations. Thus, salivary P or E3 does not appear to predict preterm birth.

Gröschl (2008) provided an overview of the current applications of salivary hormone analysis. The author noted that although saliva has not yet become a mainstream sample source for hormone analysis, it has proven to be reliable and, in some cases, even superior to other body fluids. Nevertheless, much effort will be needed for this approach to receive acceptance over the long-term, especially by clinicians. Such effort entails the development of specific and standardized analytical tools, the establishment of defined reference intervals, and implementation of round-robin trials. One major obstacle is the lack of compliance sometimes observed in outpatient saliva donors. Moreover, the author stated that there is a need for standardization of both collection and analysis methods in order to attain better comparability and evaluation of published salivary hormone data.

Measurement of late-night and/or midnight salivary cortisol currently used in the United States and European countries is a simple and convenient screening test for the initial diagnosis of Cushing's syndrome (CS). Carroll et al (2008) stated that making a definite diagnosis of CS is a challenging problem. Unsuspected CS occurs in 2 to 3 % of patients with poorly controlled diabetes, 0.5 to 1 % with hypertension, 6 to 9 % with incidental adrenal masses, and 11 % with unexplained osteoporosis and vertebral fractures. The increasing recognition of this syndrome highlights the need for a simple, sensitive, and specific diagnostic test. Patients with CS consistently do not reach a normal nadir of cortisol secretion at night. The measurement of late-night salivary cortisol levels might, therefore, provide a new diagnostic approach for this disorder. Salivary cortisol concentrations reflect those of active free cortisol in plasma and saliva samples can easily be obtained in a non-stressful environment (e.g., at home). Late-night salivary cortisol measurement yields excellent overall diagnostic accuracy for CS, with a sensitivity of 92 to 100 % and a specificity of 93 to 100 %. Several factors can, however, make interpretation of results difficult; these factors include disturbed sleep-wake cycles, contamination of samples (particularly by topical corticosteroids), and illnesses known to cause physiologic activation of the pituitary-adrenal axis.

Elamin et al (2008) summarized the evidence on the accuracy of common tests for diagnosing CS. These investigators searched electronic databases (e.g., Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and citation search for key articles) from 1975 through September 2007 and sought additional references from experts. Eligible studies reported on the accuracy of urinary free cortisol (UFC), dexamethasone suppression test (DST), and midnight cortisol assays versus reference standard in patients suspected of CS. Reviewers working in duplicate and independently extracted study characteristics and quality and data to estimate the likelihood ratio (LR) and the 95 % confidence interval (CI) for each result. These researchers found 27 eligible studies, with a high prevalence [794 (9.2 %) of 8631 patients had CS] and severity of CS. The tests had similar accuracy: UFC (n = 14 studies; LR+ 10.6, CI 5.5 to 20.5; LR- 0.16, CI 0.08 to 0.33), salivary midnight cortisol (n = 4; LR+ 8.8, CI 3.5 to 21.8; LR- 0.07, CI 0 to 1.2), and the 1-mg overnight DST (n = 14; LR+ 16.4, CI 9.3 to 28.8; LR- 0.06, CI 0.03 to 0.14). Combined testing strategies (e.g., a positive result in both UFC and 1-mg overnight DST) had similar diagnostic accuracy (n = 3; LR+ 15.4, CI 0.7 to 358; LR- 0.11, CI 0.007 to 1.57). The authors concluded that commonly used tests to diagnose CS appear highly accurate in referral practices with samples enriched with patients with CS.

Doi et al (2008) assessed the usefulness of the measurement of late-night salivary cortisol as a screening test for the diagnosis of CS in Japan. These investigators studied 27 patients with various causes of CS, consisting of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH)-dependent Cushing's disease (n = 5) and ectopic ACTH syndrome (n = 4) and ACTH-independent adrenal CS (n = 11) and subclinical CS (n = 7). Eleven patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity and 16 normal subjects served as control group. Saliva samples were collected at late-night (23:00) in a commercially available device and assayed for cortisol by radioimmunoassay. There were highly significant correlations (p <0.0001) between late-night serum and salivary cortisol levels in normal subjects (r = 0.861) and in patients with CS (r = 0.788). Late-night salivary cortisol levels in CS patients (0.975 +/- 1.56 microg/dL) were significantly higher than those in normal subjects (0.124 +/- 0.031 microg/dL) and in obese diabetic patients (0.146 +/- 0.043 microg/dL), respectively. Twenty-five out of 27 CS patients had late-night salivary cortisol concentrations greater than 0.21 microg/dL, whereas those in control group were less than 0.2 microg/dL. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis showed that the cut-off point of 0.21 microg/dL provides a sensitivity of 93 % and a specificity of 100 %. The authors concluded that the measurement of late-night salivary cortisol is an easy and reliable non-invasive screening test for the initial diagnosis of CS, especially useful for large high-risk populations, such as diabetes and obesity.

The Endocrine Society's clinical practice guideline on the diagnosis of CS (Nieman et al, 2008) stated that after excluding exogenous glucocorticoid use, testing for CS in patients with multiple and progressive features compatible with the syndrome, particularly those with a high discriminatory value, and patients with adrenal incidentaloma is recommended. It recommends the initial use of one test with high diagnostic accuracy such as urine cortisol, late night salivary cortisol, 1 mg overnight or 2 mg 48-h DST. The guideline also recommends that patients with an abnormal result see an endocrinologist and undergo a second test, either one of the above or, in some cases, a serum midnight cortisol or dexamethasone-corticotropin-releasing hormone test. Patients with concordant abnormal results should undergo testing for the cause of Cushing's syndrome. Patients with concordant normal results should not undergo further evaluation. The guideline also recommends additional testing in patients with discordant results, normal responses suspected of cyclic hypercortisolism, or initially normal responses who accumulate additional features over time.

 

[m_ob]

Most of the tests listed below have little or no diagnostic value. A few are legitimate for some purposes but are used improperly for others. Those marked with an asterisk (*) are done primarily or exclusively by chiropractors. If you encounter a practitioner who uses or abuses any of these tests, you should seek advice elsewhere. Practitioners who do live cell analysis, biological terrain assessment, dental sensitivity testing, and cytotoxic testing in their offices are required to have CLIA approval for high-complexity testing. Except for freestanding commercial laboratories, blood banks, hospitals, and large medical offices, very few facilities have high-complexity approval. Only a few states restrict the use of unestablished laboratory tests. Nevertheless, if you encounter a practitioner who does these four tests and is not obviously running a laboratory, please ask your state laboratory department to investigate.

Blood Tests
ALCAT testing
Aroonsakul Provocative Test
*Biological Terrain Assessment (BTA)
BioNutritional Analysis (BNA): Quackery for Pets
Blood pH Self Test
BodyBio Blood Chemistry Report and Fatty Acid Analysis Report
Bolan's Clot Retraction Test
Circulating IgE and IgG Food-Immune Complexes
Clifford Reactivity Materials Testing (CMRT) for selecting dental filling materials
Cytotoxic testing, also called Metabolic Intolerance Test
ELISA/ACT
Functional Intracellular Analysis (FIA), formerly called Essential Metabolics Analysis
Glucose tolerance test for "hypoglycemia"
Health Equations Blood Test Evaluation
HealthPrint
Hemobiographic analysis
Individualized Optimal Nutrition (ION)
Live Blood Cell Analysis (LBA), also called Live-cell Analysis, Nutritional Blood Analysis, and Hemaview
Lymphocyte sensitivity tests
Libe and Dried Blood Analysis
Mediator Release Test (MRT)
Mercury testing for "amalgam toxicity"
NuTron Testing
*Nutrabalance
OncoDiagnosticator
Oxymark and Oxymark Stress tests
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) for Lyme disease
Polymerase Chain Reaction: other inappropriate uses (link to Aetna Clinical Policy Bulletin)
Silicone Antibody Tests used to diagnose disease
Saliva Tests
*Biological Terrain Assessment
Candida Yeast Test
Herbal crystallization analysis
Mercury Test Kit
NutraScan
Salivary hormone tests for menopause and aging (link to another site)
Saliva pH testing
Secretory Immunoglobulin A, also called secretory IgA or sigA
Urine/saliva pH test, also called Reams test, Bio-Energy Metabolic Efficiency Analysis, Biological Immunity Analysis, and Nutri Energy Systems Analysis
Urine Tests
Amino acid analysis used as a basis for prescribing supplements
Anabolic/Catabolic Index (ACI)
*Biological Terrain Assessment
BioTrac Analysis
Lyme Antigen Urine Test [LUAT]
NutraScan
PrivaTest (Ideal Health)
Mercury testing for amalgam toxicity
Neuroregulatory Profile
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) for Lyme disease
Urinalysis by mail
Urine Toxic Metals test (Doctor's Data | Gerat Plains Laboratory)
Urine/saliva pH test, also called Reams test
Dubious Devices
ACMOS testing
Acoustic CardioGraph (ACG) (link to another site)
Amalgameter (link to another site)
Bradford Variable Projection Microscopy (BVPM)
*BTA S2000, Bioscan 2010
Cancer Detector LEC-03
*Electronic-Allergo Sensitivity Test
Electrodermal screening, also called electroacupuncture of Voll (EAV), bioelectric functions diagnosis (BFD), and electrodiagnosis
*Insight 7000 (to detect "subluxations") (link to another site)
Nerve-Express ("automatic nervous system analysis")
Oncodiagnosticator
Quantum Xrroid (also called EPFX and SCIO)
Radionics devices
*Spinal heat-detecting devices (handheld): Analagraph, Neurocalometer, Nervo-Scope, Nervoscope, Temp-o-Scope
*Surface Electromyography (to follow patient progress) (link to Chirobase)
Synchrometer for detecting cancers
*Toftness Radiation Detector)
Vegatest Device: Examination by a biomedical engineer
ViziLight screening for oral cancer
Imaging Procedures
Bio-Liminal Photography, also called Bioluminetics
Cancer Detector LEC-03
Cavitat ultrasonography (link to another site)
Chiropractic Biophysics X-Ray Analysis (link to Chirobase)
Computerized Regulation Thermography (CRT 2000)
*Contour analysis, also called moire contourography
Full-body CT scans
*Inappropriate ultrasound testing)
Keepsake Ultrasound Imaging
Kirlian photography
Polycontrast Interference Photography (PIP) (link to another site)
SPECT: Unproven uses
Thermography
TyTron C-3000 Paraspinal Digital Infrared Imaging System
Ultrasound monitoring of stroke patients)
Ultrasound screening (self-referred) via mobile units (link to another site)
*Videofluoroscopy: Inappropriate use
*X-ray overuse by chiropractors
Physical Examination Procedures
Armpit temperature test for "hypothyroidism"
Auto-Immune Dysregulation Test
*Contact Reflex Analysis
Iridology
*Leg-length testing for "pelvic deficiency" or "subluxations"
*Muscle-testing (applied kinesiology) for allergies and nutrient deficiencies
Nambutripad's Allergy Elimination Technique
O-Ring testing
Phrenognomy (link to another site)
Phrenology (link to another site)
Pulse and tongue diagnosis (traditional Chinese medicine/macrobiotics)
*Spinal Analysis Machine (S.A.M.)
Skin Tests
Patch test for mercury-amalgam hypersensitivity
Provocation-neutralization
Serial dilution-titration
Questionnaires
Acumin Analysis for custom supplement formulation
Ayurvedic "body type" questionnaire
BodyBalance Health Check Risk Assessment
B Vitamin Depletion Test (TriVita)
Daily Nutrient Guide (New England Heart & Longevity Center)
Delayed food allergy pre-screening survey
Detox Screening Quiz (About.com)
Detoxification Survey
Dr. Weil's Vitamin Adviser
Eckerd Drugs' "Personalized Vitamin" Questionnaire
Institute of Blended Medicine "Symptom Finder"
Chiropractic symptom questionnaire
Great Earth's Nutritional Fitness Profile (1990)
Health Analyzer (Nature's Sunshine)
Hormone Balance Test
Infinity Wellness Quiz
LifeClick System
LifeScript's Personal Healh Profile
Liver Health Test (Sandra Cabot, MD)
Mannatech Dietary Needs Assessment
"Nutrient deficiency" questionnaires
NutriPax Program
NutritionalTest.com questionnaires
*NutriScan Targeted Health Assessment
NutriTest
Online Electromagnetic Radiation Test
Quixtar's "My Assessment"
Recovery Systems' Quick Symptom Questionnaire
"Stress" questionnaires for determining nutrient needs
Tension myositis syndrome (TMS) questionnaire
"Yeast test" questionnaires
Miscellaneous
Acu-Cell Analysis
AndroScreen testing (link to another site)
BioPhotonic Scanning
Bizarre Tooth Charts
Blind Spot Mapping
Body Benefits test (Sciona)
"Brain Mapping" (link to another site)
Brain Typing
Comprehensive Digestive Stool Analysis
Discovery!™ Food Allergy HomeTest Kit
GCF Toxicity Assay for "focal infection"
Genetic Testing
Overview: Genetics and 'Predictive Medicine
Dubious Tests
"Genovations" Genetic Test Kits
Graphology: How It Fools People
Hair analysis
LifeClick
Lingual vitamin C test
Meridian Analysis
Nugenix genetic profiling
*NUTRI-SPEC Testing
Nutricom nutritional software systems
Mercury Assist Program (also called Health Assist Program)
"Metabolic Typing"
Mold sampling
Organic Acid Test
ProAdjuster
RealAge Test (Michael Roizen, MD, Mehmet Oz, MD)
TOPAS (Toxicity Precreening Assay)
UltraLongevity quiz (Mark Liponis, MD)
Visual Contrast Sensitivity Test to Detect Body "Toxins"
Zinc Talley`to test for zinc deficieny
Internet Testing
FDA cautions against buying diagnostic tests on the Internet
Does self-testing through QuestDirect make sense?

 

[lucidvu]

The saliva tests I had done with diagnostechs Inc. ,prior to getting the two most sensitive intestinal inflammation tests possible, read that I was possitive for gluten, casein, soy, and egg protein antibodies. To confirm this my doctor wanted the anti TTG blood draw along with endomyseial bodies, which are the most accurate tests to diagnos any intestinal prolems including gluten intolerance.
Diagnostechs results read:
Total Intestinal SIgA (Stool) 11 Low <400 Normal 400-800 Elavated >800

Milk (Casein) Ab SIgA Positive

Soy (Protein) Positive

Gliadin Ab, SIgA 57 Boderline 13-15
Positive >15

The Blood work read negative for the TTG antibodies and the endomysial, meaning there is no inflammation in the gut. My physician said with the results of these two tests negative, there should be no reason to considere possible problems here.
Celiac would have explained the constant hunger, but I am not nutrient deficient in any other test.
So now I'm wondering, is Diagnostechs a legit lab even? It sure does not seem this way after this.

Trying to make sense of these tests on your own can be confusing, and it doesn't help when physicians are also confused.

My answer to your question "Diagnostechs Lab false reading or mistake" is neither of those but instead, a third reason which is that confusion and false ideas lead to the presumption of an apparent conflict with these tests.

Comparisons are odious.The first distinction is that the saliva tests and blood tests you are describing measure very different things - one tests antibodies to food and the other tests antibodies to your own body. They are not expected to always "agree". The saliva tests you have described don't tell you how long this has been going on or if it is triggering any immune reactions against your own tissue. Food sensitivities don't necessarily trigger auto immune reactions or diseases like celiac, which is what your serum test screens for. The serum tests are looking for antibodies to your own tissue but don't measure antibodies to food. Further distinctions could be made but that is the basics. Following up on the saliva test with a different type of serum test is smart but a negative serum result does not conflict with your saliva test result at all.

I've seen plenty of both types of tests where sometimes both will be positive and sometimes not. All that tells me is that different types of immune reactions are occurring and at different stages, not whether one test is "valid" or not.

You can easily have elevated antibodies to various proteins while not having the auto(self)-antibodies that were tested by your physician. Your saliva results suggest impaired gut mucosal barrier integrity and immune dysfunction. You serum tests are negative for auto immune tissue destruction of the type that was tested and at the time they were done. This situation can however progress to where you eventually see both food and tissue antibodies positive.

To begin to directly compare saliva and blood tests you at least need to be looking at the same thing in each specimen. For example, both salivary and serum transglutaminase antibodies. Or both saliva and serum food antibodies.

Even then, saliva and serum are not expected to necessarily "agree" - if the issue is in the early stage it usually shows up in saliva first and may not show up in serum until much later.

A physician needs to be skilled enough to select and interpret these tests properly. Perhaps this is why as was mentioned here, you can purchase a test yourself and interpret it, but often incorrectly. Or go to a doctor who may charge more for the same test but perhaps because they are adding an interpretation fee to it. I don't think flawed self-diagnosis is worth saving a few bucks. It leads to confusion, inadequate care and even harm.

I could buy oil and a filter for my car cheaply and change it myself but in the process I may miss seeing other problems that need attention because I have a narrow perspective compared to a trained expert. I pay a professional do it so that they will tell me if they see other problems while they are under my car. Of course, not all trained experts are really as expert as we would like but that is what second and third opinions are for. In the same way, someone may visit a doctor with the symptom of shoulder pain and leave with the discovery that they also have cardiovascular disease. Did you ever take your saliva results back to the physician who ordered it for you and ask them the same questions?

The next distinction is the idea that anti-tranglutaminase and anti-endomysium tests are "the most accurate tests to diagnos any intestinal prolems including gluten intolerance". That is quite a mouthful. I don't know who told you this but it is completely false. First, there are plenty of possible intestinal problems that are not detectable by these two tests. Next, food sensitivity is not ruled out by negative results to these two tests. As only one example, accuracy depends on how much villous atrophy or tissue destruction is present - partial or total. Gluten sensitivity doesn't have to just affect the gut or even affect it much at all. It could be causing problems mostly outside the intestinal tract in which case other tests are more appropriate. This is not appreciated by many physicians because they immediately think "celiac" when considering gluten reactions. Celiac should be ruled out but to stop there is narrow and out-dated thinking.

So when your physician says "with the results of these two tests negative, there should be no reason to considere possible problems here" there is some truth to that in the sense that there may not be problems there but instead elsewhere - outside the gut. e.g. brain, thyroid, joints, skin etc. These two serum tests are limited in what they can detect as is any test. Other tests may be more appropriate if there are gut symptoms. Your saliva tests do suggest a problem in the gut whether or not it has progressed to auto immune reactions.

Another false idea is: "The Blood work read negative for the TTG antibodies and the endomysial, meaning there is no inflammation in the gut." A negative result on those two test does not rule out inflammation in the gut. It simply means there there are no detectable antibodies to self tissue of those types. There are other tests for gut inflammation.

"The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane." Nikola Tesla.

 

[lucidvu]

Here is this also from Quackwatch.com

Laboratories Doing Nonstandard Laboratory Tests
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
Most of the laboratories listed below cater to practitioners who engage in nonstandard practices. All of these labs perform one or more nonstandard tests. Most also perform various standard tests. When evaluating practitioners, we would regard routine use of any of these laboratories as an unfavorable sign.

AAL Reference Laboratories (AALRL)
Aeron Life Cycle Labs
Affinity Laboratory Technologies,
Altess Medical Laboratory
Age Diagnostic Laboratories
American Medical Testing Laboratories
Amscot Medical Labs
Anamol Laboratories
Antibody Assay Laboratories
Bio-Center Laboratory (BCL)
BioHealth Diagnostics
Biolab Medical Unit (UK)
Cellmate Wellness Systems (formerly Carbon Based Corporation)
Center for Complex Infectious Diseases
Diagnos-Techs
Doctor's Data
Great Plains Laboratory

Quackwatch is a bizarre old fashioned site. Don't so this. Don't do that...and don't even think about that! If Barrett the long retired psychiatrist, had his way, nothing much would get done and progress in medicine would be even slower than the snail pace it is at now. According to him, apparently the millions who are feeling miserable must simply accept that it is "all in their head" and that medicine has done all that is conceivably possible to do to help them.

He has always reminded me of one of my grandparents from some forgotten uptight era admonishing me to tuck my shirt in and pull my socks up and to never to do anything outside established "normal" and "acceptable" behavior. Some of these things may be correct but these are usually obvious to most people. A huge amount of his stuff is flawed, unreliable and out of date. He has been discredited several times about things he was adamant about. The only quackery he seems to be interested in is the non-maintream quackery. He overlooks quackery within mainstream medicine because he assumes that there isn't any. I sometimes use his site for beginning ideas but never for reliable information. While there is no shortage of charlatans in all areas, his web site is no protection against that. Hopefully one day someone will create a website of all quackery and stupidity, including that which occurs within mainstream medicine.

 

[lucidvu]

Trust the labs your doctor ordered.

I have had a very strong suspicion that most of the saliva mail order labs are bull. For the saliva test for cortisol they have you fill out a questionnaire? Why is this necessary?

It would be cool to have one person send the same lab test results in under two different names and see what they said.

Trust the labs to a certain degree yes. Unfortunately the understanding of those labs may not be reliable.

I'd have to see the questions that are being asked by the saliva testing lab but lab tests do not give you the total picture. e.g. If the cortisol reading is high perhaps the person is applying hydrocortisone or drinking coffee all day. Often, these questions are useful for the physician who may later consult with the lab about the results. The lab already has a standard form ready with the patent's answers and that the physician did not think to ask or the patient can no longer recall accurately. Rather than be suspicious, perhaps we can be be grateful that a lab takes the time to ensure accurate results by asking appropriate questions at the time of the sample collection.

Accuracy of various labs is already being done with double blind proficiency testing.

 

[lucidvu]

I don't trust Quackwatch one bit or the author. He has a very shady background and is not even a doctor. I personally feel his one and only goal is to demean all alternative non-traditional treatments w/o consideration.

That said, I don't trust Diagnos-Techs either. I had the labs the original poster stated. A lot of these 'holistic' docs recommend this firm for testing. BUT, when I got the results back stating possible parasitic issues, the doc all of a sudden didn't feel compelled to use any real drug treatment. I'm guessing everyone comes back positive for gluten sensitivity on the panel.

There's a lot of provider mark-ups going on and captive pricing. Be careful. These labs won't even give a consumer a price for a lab test. The rep told me she'd lose her job for divulging a cost to me or even the tiered pricing. What that says to me is providers are making money to push tests their way and there's a referral system occurring.

The deal breaker for me is if the provider endorses a lab, they damn well better be sure to treat a positive result the lab finds or you're just screwing a patient.

I have found zero correlation with saliva testing for hormones vs. blood or 24 hr urine results. it's like night and day. Who do I believe? I do ask why insurance would reimburse for saliva labs though if they were absurdly off? Insurers aren't into paying for trash tests. The bottom line is someone's right and someone's wrong. Who though?

Quackwatch Barrrett turned in his MD license long ago after an unsuccessful career as a psychiatrist.

quackpotwatch.org

No, everyone does not come back positive for the "gluten panel". Even if they did, this is a test for antibodies to food, not antibodies to self tissue.

Here's the thing though - most of the gliadin test kits used, whether for serum or saliva testing, are only checking for antibodies to alpha gliadin, not other parts of gliadin such as gamma, omega etc and once thought to be "unimportant". So they are not really testing gliadin completely, only a fraction of it. Furthermore, is the saliva test looking at IgA or IgG or IgM etc? It matters. Because of outdated tests like this, a lot of gluten sensitivity is actually missed.

With any result, whether it is serum or saliva or other sample, treatment with drugs or otherwise is determined by clinical need. e.g. Toxplasmosis antibodies may be elevated but treatment is only used if clinical signs and symptoms warrant it. Sometimes the treatment is worse than the condition. This is normal, standard care by any doctor - conventional or "holistic". Not treating positive results is not necessarily "screwing" the patient, especially when the toxic effects of the treatment itself may actually screw the patient.

As for mark ups of labs, I'd have to see each case and each clinical economic model. In some business models, there is a set up, handling and interpretation fee built in to the lab price they charge. Others charge for their interpretation and consultation separately. I am not aware of any "referral or tiered system". Avoid doctors who appear too "slick" or who don't take the time to explain things to your satisfaction or the type of things I am explaining here.

With correlation of serum, saliva and urine test for hormones, I don't know what your training or understanding is, or what you have been told by your doctor(s) but here are a few basics things to keep in mind:

Saliva measures free fraction hormones so correlation would be more likely with serum free hormones, not the serum protein bound hormones. Urine hormone results can be useful but there is potential for various hepatic and renal confounders.

 

[lucidvu]

It is hard to keep up with your testing, but you are on to something here. There are many problems associated with saliva testing. It is good for very few (very few) tests. In another thread, you mention your suspicion for the tests when you state you have absolutely no symptoms, etc. You were right to question the initial result. The blood results are to be trusted - for the reason you post and the correlation to the clinical picture. Unfortunately, this solves one problem but not the T. [Did you list all of the suspect labs? What is the link? - Laboratories Doing Nonstandard Laboratory Tests ]

Saliva tests are used a lot by researchers for good reason. There are potential problems with any test. Sticking to the topic, here are a few...

Salivary IgA antigliadin antibody as a marker for coeliac disease.
" Measurement of salivary IgA AGA provided excellent discrimination between those children with coeliac disease and the control groups, and our study suggests that it may provide a rapid, non-invasive method of screening for this disease before intestinal biopsy."

Arch Dis Child. 1992 June; 67(6): 724–727.
V Hakeem, R Fifield, H F al-Bayaty, M J Aldred, D M Walker, J Williams, and H R Jenkins
Department of Child Health, Royal Infirmary, Cardiff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radioimmunological Detection of Anti-transglutaminase Autoantibodies in Human Saliva: A Useful Test To Monitor Coeliac Disease Follow-up.

"This study demonstrates that it is possible to detect salivary tTG-Abs with high sensitivity not only at CD diagnosis, but also during GFD."

M. Bonamico; R. Nenna; R. P. L. Luparia; C. Perricone; M. Montuori; F. Lucantoni; A. Castronovo; S. Mura; A. Turchetti; P. Strappini; C. Tiberti
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics. 2008;28(3):364-370.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Serum and salivary antigliadin antibodies and serum IgA anti-endomysium antibodies as a screening test for coeliac disease.

"Serum IgG antigliadin and IgA anti-endomysium antibodies had the highest sensitivity (100 and 94.4%, respectively), followed by serum IgA antibodies to gliadin (72.2%), salivary IgA antigliadin (61.2%) and IgG antigliadin (50%) antibodies.

The highest specificity was found for serum IgA anti-endomysium (100%) and IgA antigliadin (96.6%) antibodies and salivary IgA and IgG antigliadin antibodies (93.3%), while serum IgG antigliadin antibodies were found to be least specific (63.3%).

Acta Paediatr. 1996 Jul;85(7):814-7.
Rujner J, Socha J, Barra E, Gregorek H, Madali?ski K, Wo?niewicz B, Giera B.
Source
Department of Gastroenterology, Child Health Centre, Warsaw, Poland.

So if anything, when compared to serum testing, saliva testing gave more false negatives not a false positive (sensitivity). i.e. salivary testing was less able to detect antibodies to gliadin when it should have.

Salivary testing also had good specificity (less false positive) while serum IgG actually had the most false positive.