Getting conflicting info about STD test results

[Jeff7181]

So I went to the doctor about some burning while urinating and discharge. Long story short I was treated for chlamydia and ghonorrea. The doctor did a culture too and said the results would not be conclusive because those are difficult to culture so he wanted to take the shotgun approach and treat both, so he did. Now my symptoms are gone and the test results came back negative for both of those things, but my girlfriend and I are concerned about her. She shows no symptoms and her doctor said she shouldn't be treated because the test would definitely show positive if I had one of those, which is the opposite of what my doctor said. So, should my girlfriend get tested/treated or should we be fine now that my symptoms are gone?

 

[MrMatt]

Let me ask this; why wouldn't she go get tested? If my gf came home one day and said she had a raging case of gonorrhea after I finished murdering her, I would then go to the nearest clinic to get tested. Also your post is confusing; her doctor said she shouldn't get treated because she'll test positive for them? What?

 

[kamper]

Let me ask this; why wouldn't she go get tested? If my gf came home one day and said she had a raging case of gonorrhea after I finished murdering her, I would then go to the nearest clinic to get tested. Also your post is confusing; her doctor said she shouldn't get treated because she'll test positive for them? What?

I think the implication was that she was tested and the tests came back negative. The question is whether or not to trust that result.

 

[Deeko]

I think the implication was that she was tested and the tests came back negative. The question is whether or not to trust that result.

I took it as her doctor said not to bother getting her tested, as the OP's test came back negative, therefore, she can't have it.

I say what's the harm in her getting tested? If she comes back negative, cool, no harm done.

 

[kamper]

I took it as her doctor said not to bother getting her tested, as the OP's test came back negative, therefore, she can't have it.

I say what's the harm in her getting tested? If she comes back negative, cool, no harm done.

Er, you're right of course. I missed the quite-obvious question in the op

 

[conorvansmack]

Does the Pope sh*t in the woods? Is a bear Catholic? Hell yes, get her tested. You can buy peace of mind.

 

[Jeff7181]

I guess we're just confused because the doctor I went to said the test results wouldn't be a definite negative even if they came back negative because it's hard to culture. So a negative on the culture just means they couldn't culture it, not that I absolutely could not have either of those.

Then her doctor said the test results are conclusive, meaning if I tested negative, there's no way I had one of those two things they tested for. So her doctor seemed to lead her to believe that it was just a bladder infection/UTI. But I kinda doubt that given the symptoms.

We talked about it and she's going to get tested regardless, we're just confused how one doctor can say, "I'm going to test you, but negative doesn't necessarily mean you don't have it" while another says, "if you tested negative, there's no way you have it."

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Doctors give out misinformation, just like everybody else. She has the right to get tested and the doctor will have to oblige. If he doesn't, she can just go to the nearest clinic. Just get her tested.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

you both should be treated as a precaution and any doctor saying other wise is an idiot and wants you to come back in 2 months cuz you have given it back and forth to each other.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

So I went to the doctor about some burning while urinating and discharge. Long story short I was treated for chlamydia and ghonorrea. The doctor did a culture too and said the results would not be conclusive because those are difficult to culture so he wanted to take the shotgun approach and treat both, so he did. Now my symptoms are gone and the test results came back negative for both of those things, but my girlfriend and I are concerned about her. She shows no symptoms and her doctor said she shouldn't be treated because the test would definitely show positive if I had one of those, which is the opposite of what my doctor said. So, should my girlfriend get tested/treated or should we be fine now that my symptoms are gone?

Chlamydia might not even EVER be a problem for a girl, until it travels up the cervical area...

Are you stupid, EVERYONE you have had sex with should be tested and i do mean EVERYONE, you are legally obliged to disclose whoe they are so that they can be tested.

Don't like that, don't fuck without a condom retard.

 

[Jeff7181]

Chlamydia might not even EVER be a problem for a girl, until it travels up the cervical area...

Are you stupid, EVERYONE you have had sex with should be tested and i do mean EVERYONE, you are legally obliged to disclose whoe they are so that they can be tested.

Don't like that, don't fuck without a condom retard.

What the fuck's your problem, asshole? Take it down a few notches. You haven't a clue what my circumstances are or what my sexual history is and shouldn't assume you do. Prick.

 

[Jeff7181]

Doctors give out misinformation, just like everybody else. She has the right to get tested and the doctor will have to oblige. If he doesn't, she can just go to the nearest clinic. Just get her tested.

I guess my response to that would be, if one doctor is saying negative isn't necessarily negative, what's the point of testing? Or is that just bullshit and there are more conclusive tests that can be done?

 

[SociallyChallenged]

I guess my response to that would be, if one doctor is saying negative isn't necessarily negative, what's the point of testing? Or is that just bullshit and there are more conclusive tests that can be done?

On most tests used in doctor's offices, negative is likely negative. All tests have a certain degree of error, but they are frequently right. Forget the doctor, get the damn tests, and be over with it. If someone gets a positive test, get another one done for certainty.

 

[shiranai]

I guess my response to that would be, if one doctor is saying negative isn't necessarily negative, what's the point of testing? Or is that just bullshit and there are more conclusive tests that can be done?

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem

As discussed in Calculated Risks by Gerd Gigerenzer, there is a real problem with how statistical information, such as false positive/negative rates of medical testing, is understood by doctors and/or communicated to patients. If I remember correctly, the root of the problem is that a medical test is often described in terms of four conditional probabilities:
- The probability that the test returns a positive given that the patient has the condition (true positive)
- The probability that the test returns a positive given that the patient doesn't have the condition (false positive)
- The probability that the test returns a negative given that the patient has the condition (false negative)
- The probability that the test returns a negative given that the patient doesn't have the condition (true negative)

But this isn't quite the information the patient is interested in; he wants to know what the probability of having the condition is given a particular test result (i.e., P(A|B)), not what the probability of a particular test result is given the presence or absence of the condition (i.e., P(B|A)).

The takeaway is that a positive/negative test result has different implications depending on the incidence of the condition itself (e.g., high risk groups versus low risk groups). Even without Bayes' Theorem, this makes intuitive sense: for instance, a negative test result is more likely to be accurate if you're in a low risk group, because being in the low risk group means that your chance of even having the condition in the first place is lower.

 

[mizzou]

That sucks man, hopefully you will be retested and can get a 100% confirmation of your situation.

Was this some shore leave / one night stand thing or is this someone you have been steady with?

 

[eits]

yes, get her tested. in many cases, females don't show any symptoms of chlamydia. gonorrhea's different, though. i think only 1 out of 5 guys who have it show symptoms... females typically show symptoms early. if she's showing symptoms, she has it... if not, she might not.

you banged some pretty nasty chicks, so congrats to giving your gf a whole variety of hpv strains (thus increasing her chances of getting cervical cancer). yes, you should suggest she be tested for the clap and chlamydia.

 

[Jeff7181]

That sucks man, hopefully you will be retested and can get a 100% confirmation of your situation.

Was this some shore leave / one night stand thing or is this someone you have been steady with?

Been together (and exclusive) for three months and counting.

 

[Jeff7181]

yes, get her tested. in many cases, females don't show any symptoms of chlamydia. gonorrhea's different, though. i think only 1 out of 5 guys who have it show symptoms... females typically show symptoms early. if she's showing symptoms, she has it... if not, she might not.

you banged some pretty nasty chicks, so congrats to giving your gf a whole variety of hpv strains (thus increasing her chances of getting cervical cancer). yes, you should suggest she be tested for the clap and chlamydia.

That's a pretty bold (and incorrect) statement for someone that doesn't know a damn thing about me.

 

[mizzou]

Been together (and exclusive) for three months and counting.

Yeah, three months isnt enough to know someone doesnt have the clap. One month incubation period and one or more to show symptoms i guess

Should always use a condom man hope its just something else

 

[Sust]

Sorry to hear about your results but at least we fortunately live in a time when there are great treatments with relatively benign side effects

Your situation sounds like there might have been some mutual miscommunication/misunderstanding which often happens in today's age of managed care's increasing demand for higher patient throughput(i.e. 15 minute visits).

First, read about test sensitivity and specificity. Trying to see or culture organisms like chlamydia can be difficult sometimes which is what makes the diagnostic yield low on such a test. Now if you feel like you've got the money and you'd like to have a gonorrhea/chlamydia LCR/PCR test done on your sample then that will definitely tell you whether or not either of them were present. However, the cost of the antibiotics are far cheaper than the test, so you would again have to ask yourself how much is the answer really worth to you in comparison to risk associated with empiric antibiotic treatment. Some doctors would probably err on the side of treating both patient and partner empirically(due to lack of faith that either will ever follow-up later). Make sure your significant other getting treated has an antifungal in case the yeast overrun the area while the antibiotics wipe out all bacteria.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Your situation sounds like there might have been some mutual miscommunication/misunderstanding which often happens in today's age of managed care's increasing demand for higher patient throughput(i.e. 15 minute visits).

So, what are they doing for the other hour between patients?

 

[Deeko]

What the fuck's your problem, asshole? Take it down a few notches. You haven't a clue what my circumstances are or what my sexual history is and shouldn't assume you do. Prick.

He has a history of being a dick. Ignore him.

 

[Sust]

So, what are they doing for the other hour between patients?

More than likely battling an insurance carrier for treatment a pt needs or catching up on the triplicate forms they need to fill out in order to get a procedure, referral, or medication authorized. Imagine the tech support or RMA process from hell and that's kinda what your doctor is up against except each insurance carrier puts its own delightful twist on the process.
The other possibility is that they could just have a slew of other patients that they might be seeing since there's probably a room full of them in the waiting area with you.

 

[eits]

That's a pretty bold (and incorrect) statement for someone that doesn't know a damn thing about me.

i didn't say they were ugly. i said they were nasty in the sense of not being disease free. chances are that if you have sex with a chick who has std's, there are other nasty chicks you've banged, too. what i'm trying to say is that safety isn't exactly a priority of yours when it comes to sex and if a girl is ok with that, she's nasty and might have a disease or something.

 

[eits]

More than likely battling an insurance carrier for treatment a pt needs or catching up on the triplicate forms they need to fill out in order to get a procedure, referral, or medication authorized. Imagine the tech support or RMA process from hell and that's kinda what your doctor is up against except each insurance carrier puts its own delightful twist on the process.
The other possibility is that they could just have a slew of other patients that they might be seeing since there's probably a room full of them in the waiting area with you.

what's great is when they change addresses on you and the forms you fill out and mail in come back to you 3 weeks later because they changed locations without notifying you.