Citation: Ali Mehrabi Tavana. Future Laboratories in the Medical Field. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2017; 7: 105

This open-access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (CC BY-NC) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits reuse, distribution and reproduction of the article, provided that the original work is properly cited and the reuse is restricted to noncommercial purposes. For commercial reuse, contact reprints@pulsus.com

Letter to Editor

In the past, there was not much laboratory evidence available to doctors. [1] They paid more attention to treating their illness by examining patients and obtaining biographies of them and did not know what the biochemistry status and the patient’s hemoglobin, diabetes and fat were? And, bestowing their knowledge of their patients and recognizing common native diseases in the region, they were dedicated to treating their patients in different ways, using herbal remedies and ancestral medicine. [2] Sometimes they were used to diagnose the feces and colors of the patient and the color of the patient. Years ago, Antonie Philips van Leeuwenhoek discovered a microscope. [3] Other scientists discovered cultured environments for detecting microbes, and discovered some tuberculosis strains for detecting viruses with echelon clear microscopy, and biochemical and hematologic immunological methods were common and diseases were gradually more accurately detected, urine specimen collection and feces and other biologic specimens on the one hand, [4] and the existence of precise instruments such as PCRs and precision centrifuges, have provided all the dramatic changes in the diagnosis of screenings for patients, and thus it is easier to detect known diseases, and even to Diagnosis of known diseases before go away. [5] Nowadays, by taking a drop of a biological sample (urine blood, etc.), it is possible to detect dozens of patient profiles and help the physician to treat patients, and maybe some tests will require hourly minutes from time to time and interpreting it to experience of physicians too. In the future, with the advancement of technology, the situation will likely be different because:

• You may not need to take a sample of the patients.

• It may not be necessary for her to be present at the hospital or laboratory

• Maybe you should not wait so much for the Laboratory’s answer

• Perhaps only a self-test can be used to test and interpret the patient’s exact and complete kits.

• In the not too distant future, scientists may be able to design a laboratory that informs their health profiles without providing blood stool specimens or any other biological mate-rial to the body as soon as possible. And another possibility is that each person can carry out and interpret the entire experimentation with his own mobile labs.

• Maybe in the future, the devices will be marketed to the market by people using their instantaneous health-related profiles through an electronic watch and smart phone.

• It makes it possible for the future, or else you have the same opinion.

• In the next few decades or century, however, our ideas will be reviewed by scientists. In fact, the future of the labs will be more accurate and more general, but it is not clear that their costs are cheaper to study. Really we have to wait and see what happen in the future any way. It is hoped that both the patient and the physician will be satisfied with the results of the future labs and the errors will be minimized. I wish better world and better lab and better lab results for all world population in particular for developing countries.

Conflict of Interest

All authors disclose that there was no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Horvath AR. From evidence to best practice in laboratory medicine. The Clinical Biochemist Reviews, 2013; 34: 47-60.
2. Davids D, Blouws T, Aboyade O, Gibson D, De Jong JT, Van’t Klooster  C, et al. Traditional health practitioners’ perceptions, herbal treatment and management of HIV and related opportunistic infections. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 2014; 10:77.
3. Ramírez-Castillo FY, Loera-Muro A, Jacques M, Garneau P, Avelar-González FJ, Harel J, et al. Waterborne Pathogens: Detection Methods and Challenges. Pathogens, 2015; 4: 307-334.
4. Lagier JC, Edouard S, Pagnier I, Mediannikov O, Drancourt M, Raoult D. Current and past strategies for bacterial culture in clinical microbiology. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2015; 28: 208-236.
5. Metzker ML, Caskey CT. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR). eLS, 2009.