AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2003
Prescreening mammography by technologists: a preliminary assessment.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Sumkin Jules H, Klaman Herta M, Graham Marianne, Ruskauff Theresa, Gennari Rose C, King Jill L, Klym Amy H, Ganott Marie A, Gur David
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the ability of technologists to accurately classify screening mammograms as either showing negative findings or requiring follow-up.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a prospective study, 33 technologists at a central facility and five satellite breast imaging facilities recorded whether mammograms obtained during 3019 examinations showed negative findings or findings that indicated that additional procedures were required. The technologists were not specifically trained for the experiment. The technologists' interpretations were compared with radiologists' interpretations.
RESULTS: Technologists and radiologists agreed in 82% of the cases (77% negative findings and 5% requiring follow-up). Of the 175 cases recommended for follow-up by only the radiologists, 17 were ultimately biopsied and two were found to be malignant.
CONCLUSION: Even without undergoing additional training, technologists can perform at reasonable levels of accuracy in classifying screening mammograms. The possibility of using technologists to group cases after the technologists have undergone training is an interesting concept that should be explored further.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a prospective study, 33 technologists at a central facility and five satellite breast imaging facilities recorded whether mammograms obtained during 3019 examinations showed negative findings or findings that indicated that additional procedures were required. The technologists were not specifically trained for the experiment. The technologists' interpretations were compared with radiologists' interpretations.
RESULTS: Technologists and radiologists agreed in 82% of the cases (77% negative findings and 5% requiring follow-up). Of the 175 cases recommended for follow-up by only the radiologists, 17 were ultimately biopsied and two were found to be malignant.
CONCLUSION: Even without undergoing additional training, technologists can perform at reasonable levels of accuracy in classifying screening mammograms. The possibility of using technologists to group cases after the technologists have undergone training is an interesting concept that should be explored further.