is a "satisfactory" medical test result (endoscopy and biopsy)  the same as "normal" or "clear"?
970858
All clear, OK, NAD, Normal and stop worrying, all these terms basically convey same message that for that particular test everything was Fine, So sit back and relax
457919
90-100% sat is normal, if you used a saline soulution, did they call it a challange test? if they did they wre checking to se how reactive your airways were, the gold standard in diagnosing astham...\nyour doctor will determine the results and give you a regimin to help your breathing
357956
Doesn't sound abnormal, but ask physician.
717195
It depends on your hospital/laboratory location and turn around.  By cytology, I assume you mean a pap test.  Most labs have a 72 hour turn around but a fixed % are read by a pathologist (MD/DO) as well as a cytotechnologist.  Abnormal results may also take a little longer to finalize.\n\nA general rule in 3-5 business days.\nGL
582765
I'm no doctor, Diva, but I've had a careful examination of my own larynx done at least twice before and I can tell you that the optimal test is a visual one: insertion of a fibre-optic scope to view the larynx on a video monitor. There is even a connecting tool that can take biopsies, depending on what the examining physician (invariably an ear, nose and throat specialist) is looking for. The test itself is unpleasant, as the scope is inserted into one of the nostrils and then goes way down the back of your throat. And yes, you are conscious the entire time because the doctor will need you to speak, swallow, etc. during the actual procedure. There is an anesthetic spray used but, trust me, you feel it and it does take a while to examine everything (including vocal chords, pharynx, trachea, etc.). That said, there are several very serious medical conditions associated with this and you very definitely need to have this procedure done. Please look into it right away. And keep me posted, ok? You know how to reach me, m'lady, so please do not hesitate to do so if I can be of any further assistance. Be well.
587579
you should ask your doctor if that is normal
561158
Good luck to you. My husband had a biopsy yesterday and we're supposed to get the results sometime tonight.
448608
Usually the findings/impressions just say what the radiologist sees.  For example, in a chest x-ray, it might say "a smooth, rounded, 2 cm density in the right upper lobe."  Well, that can describe many different processes.  Sometimes, the radiologist will give a differential diagnosis....ie:  "this could be due to X disease" or "Y disease can present this way." \n\nIt is up to the primary care physician to decide what process is causing this.  A MRI or CT scan or x-ray or ultrasound is just a part of a diagnosis of a disease/condition.
605657
When the doctor does a biopsy and the test comes back saying you have it.\n\nYou can have a lump, but there's no way of knowing what kind of lump you have until a doctor checks it out.
728482
I assume you are asking about tumor markers. Eating and taking anti-anxiety medication beforehand wil not affect these tests.
89162
Good for you, that's normal though... :-)
30328
Contact the Board of Medical Quality Assurance in  your state or the medical society in your county.   The specific answer varies from one jurisdiction to another.
364687
Every medical laboratory is to some extent unique. This lab uses that reagent supplier for blood tests, and some other supplier for tissue tests, and so on. Another lab uses a different collection of suppliers. And, different labs use different procedures to some extent (eg, different workloads of facility layouts). And there are often several different equipment vendors, whose equipment works slightly differently, using different operational sequences and check points.\n\nSo, the very same sample (at least taken from a single larger original sample anyway) will give slightly different results in every lab for most any particular test. In order to lessen the chance of confusion, labs report a 'norm' value for many tests to tell those interpreting the test that our values run <a little higher than the literature reports...> or something similar. They also usually supply a 'normal range' for each test as a courtesy to whoever has to look at the reports; people vary quite a lot, and this value might be acceptable in you but not in someone else quite apart from any laboratory norm differences from other labs.\n\nSince the values in clinical lab reports are often used to decide questions of diagnosis and treatment, it's pretty important (actually vital) to be certain the lab's results are as claimed. And certainly that any errors which can be caught are actually identified. There is a small industry of calibrated sample suppliers and operational testing to ensure this. \n\n==========\nblood glucose testing example\n\nTake, for instance, the home blood glucose monitors used by many diabetics. These generally come with a small bottle of test solution (or control solution, depending on who is choosing names). This is carefully concocted 'fake blood' with a pre-determined concentration of glucose. By using it (if it hasn't partially evaporated or deteriorated), one can test the operation of the glucose meter/test strip combination, qualitatively -- and to some extent quantitatively. A similar dodge is used in actual laboratories. To avoid 'fudging' in the labs themselves (a kind of Caesar's wife's reputation sort of thing), test reagents are generally not made locally, but rather in a central facility.\n\n======\nregulation, licensing, accreditation\n\nLabs are also supervised by industry accrediting bodies rather like colleges, and almost always have statutory and regulatory supervision (mandatory licensing, for example). \n\n======\nmalfeasance\n\nDespite all of this, it's still possible for mendacious lab operators to perform poorly. Especially in circumstances which require some subjective evaluation. A recent example in the US, though not exactly a laboratory issue, is the exposure of what seems to have been a litigation fraud involving lung diseases caused by mining or industrial operations. Attorneys have advertised for plaintiffs, provided testing for them, and organized suits for damages based on the results. The tests (X-rays and the interpretation thereof, primarily) were performed by  independent contracting physicians and X-ray labs, but it seems that several folks noticed that business depended on the findings. There were an awfully large number of folks found to have lung disease who may not have had it all, or at least not the disease for which damages were being sought. Just who arranged for it all, beyond a small number of doctors who made quick diagnoses from medical files, usually without actually meeting patients, is not clear. The lawyers certainly benefited in that they found clients for whom ot work. The patients benefited, though often not very much as individual settlements were often not large. As the situation is clarified, we may learn more as to who organized it, if there is indeed a single organizing brain. \n\nPsychological testing is not very lab based, but the same (or something similar) kind of problem has been noticed in exert evaluations
926920
You are absolutely correct when you say that some of these tests are inaccurate.My sister who was 47 was diagnosed with gall stones and it took weeks for her to get the surgery and it was then they discovered she had 3rd stage pancreatic cancer.Do yourself a favour and get that mri sooner rather than later to ensure a correct diagnosis. Hope it all goes well.
524680
The doctor who ordered this blood test should be able to walk through this with you.  At the very least, there should be a nursing line that you can call and ask.  \n\nMost blood results I have received have shown right on the print out what is too low, too high, or within the normal range.  This is a good starting place, but anything abnormal should really be discussed with your healthcare practitioner.
953105
Perfectly normal and common
567271
First of all, it's very common for young women to have a mildly abnormal Pap smear.  It just means that some of the cells they sampled aren't normal and they want to check again sooner than they would otherwise (usually a year.)\n\nMild cases of dysplasia very often clear up on their own.  It is usually caused by exposure to the human papilloma virus, which is also very common.  If your immune system can clear it up on its own, then your next Pap will likely be normal.  If not, your doctor will advise you of the next step.  If it's the same, the next step will probably be more "wait and see" or might include a colposcopy (kind of like a Pap, but they use a scope to actually look at your cervix and they swab some solutions onto it to see how the cells react.)  If it's advanced to a higher level of abnormality, then they may want to intervene; there are a couple of ways for doctors to excise a portion of the cervix, removing the abnormal part.  If it gets to that, make sure you ask your doc lots of questions about the procedure and any side effects.\n\nI had a series of mildly abnormal Paps (CIN 1, see answer above) about 5 or 6 years ago.  Mine cleared up on its own without any medical intervention and my Paps have been clear ever since.