Radiology · 1995
Effects of a program to train radiologic technologists to identify abnormalities on mammograms.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка службы здравоохранения СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bassett L W, Hollatz-Brown A J, Bastani R, Pearce J G, Hirji K, Chen L
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess whether radiologic technologists could be successfully trained to identify abnormalities on mammograms.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight radiologic technologists from two different institutions took a pretest, underwent an 8-hour training course followed by a period of preceptorship, and then took a posttest. Seven radiologists also took the pretest and posttest, which consisted of evaluating 1,238 two-view screening examinations, including 318 biopsy-proved cancers.
RESULTS: Overall, technologists at institution 1 had lower sensitivity (78%) at the pretest, which improved at the posttest (90%). Technologists at institution 2 had lower specificity at the pretest (44%), which improved on the posttest (64%). Hypothetical pairing of radiologists and technologists with use of posttest results revealed an increase in sensitivity (median increase, 12% at institution 1 and 19% at institution 2).
CONCLUSION: Formalized training successfully modified the technologists' skills. Radiologic technologists could be used to increase the number of breast cancers detected at screening mammography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight radiologic technologists from two different institutions took a pretest, underwent an 8-hour training course followed by a period of preceptorship, and then took a posttest. Seven radiologists also took the pretest and posttest, which consisted of evaluating 1,238 two-view screening examinations, including 318 biopsy-proved cancers.
RESULTS: Overall, technologists at institution 1 had lower sensitivity (78%) at the pretest, which improved at the posttest (90%). Technologists at institution 2 had lower specificity at the pretest (44%), which improved on the posttest (64%). Hypothetical pairing of radiologists and technologists with use of posttest results revealed an increase in sensitivity (median increase, 12% at institution 1 and 19% at institution 2).
CONCLUSION: Formalized training successfully modified the technologists' skills. Radiologic technologists could be used to increase the number of breast cancers detected at screening mammography.