ABSTRACT
@#In 2004, the University of the Philippines Manila published the Philippine Guidelines on Periodic Health Examination (PHEX): Effective Screening for Diseases among Apparently Healthy Filipinos. 1 The document was envisioned to “contribute… to the quality and efficiency of health care and health maintenance for all Filipinos… It was an appeal for rational medical decision-making, and an important step toward “equitable distribution of health and health resources.” The guidelines were prepared by designated task forces, with vision disorders, specifically vision impairment, and glaucoma identified as areas of interest. PHEX recommendations were drafted using standardized principles and a common protocol, with each statement undergoing four phases of development: (1) preparation of the evidence- based draft; (2) en banc meeting that gave panelists a chance to assess and revise the draft, where issues of feasibility, resource limitations, value judgment, and experts’ opinions were taken into account. A consensus was declared when at least 75% agreed on a recommendation; (3) for unresolved issues, modified Delphi technique was employed by correspondence until a consensus was reached or a maximum of three circulations were accomplished. If still unresolved, the issue was labeled as such and included in the final draft; (4) lastly, a public forum was conducted before the final draft was written. In this manner, the recommendations for Screening for Visual Impairment were written by the Task Force for Vision Disorders.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Vision Screening , Vision Tests , Diagnosis , Reference Standards , Vision Disorders , Amblyopia , Strabismus , Visual Acuity , Vision TestsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: We evaluated a rapid screening kit for the detection of hepatitis surface antigen (HBsAg) and antibody (anti-HBs) using an immunochromatographic method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected 499 serum specimens for the evaluation. Each specimen was tested by enzyme immunoassay (EIA; Cobas Core, Roche, Switzerland), reverse passive hemagglutination (RPHA; Serodia HBs, Asan, Korea) for HBsAg, passive hemagglutination (PHA; Serodia Anti-HBs, Asan, Korea) for anti-HBs, and with the Genedia HBsAg and Anti-HBs Rapid (Green Cross Corp., Korea) kits. Results of each assay were compared with those of the EIA. RESULTS: The sensitivities and specificities of the Genedia HBsAg Rapid kit were 98.0% and 100%, and those for the Genedia Anti-HBs Rapid kit were 95.3% and 98.0%, respectively. These were higher than those for RPHA (96.0% and 100%), and PHA (83.2% and 96.0%). Concordance rates between EIA and Genedia HBsAg Rapid, Genedia Anti-HBs Rapid, RPHA, and PHA were 98.8%, 96.4%, 97.6%, and 88.4%, respectively. Extending the incubation time from the recommended 30 minutes to 2 hours increased the sensitivities of the Genedia kits. CONCLUSION: The Genedia HBsAg and Anti-HBs Rapid kits are simple, sensitive, and inexpensive assays suitable for screening or use in emergency situations.