pubmed-article:1867894 | rdf:type | pubmed:Citation | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0028661 | lld:lifeskim |
pubmed-article:1867894 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0031831 | lld:lifeskim |
pubmed-article:1867894 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C0282440 | lld:lifeskim |
pubmed-article:1867894 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1096777 | lld:lifeskim |
pubmed-article:1867894 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C2347781 | lld:lifeskim |
pubmed-article:1867894 | lifeskim:mentions | umls-concept:C1272745 | lld:lifeskim |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:issue | 1 | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:dateCreated | 1991-9-17 | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:abstractText | Health professionals' clinical breast examination accuracy and skills are not optimal. We conducted a randomized trial to evaluate changes in physicians' and nurses' lump detection accuracy and examination skills after a training program emphasizing development of tactile skills and using silicone breast models containing lumps of varying sizes, degrees of hardness, and depth of placement. Sensitivity, specificity, and examination technique were measured before and four months after training in 43 experimental group and 46 control group participants. Mean sensitivity increased from 57% to 63% in the experimental group but decreased from 57% to 56% in the control group (P less than or equal to .05). The experimental group's posttest sensitivity was better for each lump characteristic, with statistically significant improvement for the very small (0.3 cm) and medium hard lumps. Duration of examination independently predicted sensitivity. Specificity decreased from 56% to 41% in the experimental group while it increased from 56% to 68% in the control group (P less than or equal to .05). Physicians had significantly higher mean sensitivity than nurses overall, as well as for the larger (1.0 cm), very small (0.3 cm), and softer lumps, but significantly lower mean specificity (33% versus 57%, P = .03). The experimental group improved significantly in five of six technique components while the control group improved in only one. To determine the effect of training on specificity in the clinical setting, we examined medical records of women seen by a subset of experimental and control physicians during the six months following training. There were no significant differences in the proportion of abnormal breast examinations reported or the number of mammograms ordered by experimental and control physicians. Our results show health professionals can be taught successfully to improve their clinical breast examination accuracy and skills. | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:grant | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:language | eng | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:journal | http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:citationSubset | IM | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:status | MEDLINE | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:issn | 0749-3797 | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:LimRR | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:FletcherS WSW | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:CampbellH SHS | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:MorganT MTM | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:author | pubmed-author:PilgrimC ACA | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:issnType | Print | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:volume | 7 | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:owner | NLM | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:authorsComplete | Y | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:pagination | 1-8 | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:dateRevised | 2007-11-14 | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:1867894-... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:1867894-... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:1867894-... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:1867894-... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:1867894-... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:1867894-... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:1867894-... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:1867894-... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:1867894-... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:1867894-... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:1867894-... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:meshHeading | pubmed-meshheading:1867894-... | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:articleTitle | Improving physicians' and nurses' clinical breast examination: a randomized controlled trial. | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:affiliation | Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:publicationType | Journal Article | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:publicationType | Clinical Trial | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:publicationType | Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S. | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:publicationType | Randomized Controlled Trial | lld:pubmed |
pubmed-article:1867894 | pubmed:publicationType | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't | lld:pubmed |
http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:1867894 | lld:pubmed |
http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:1867894 | lld:pubmed |
http://linkedlifedata.com/r... | pubmed:referesTo | pubmed-article:1867894 | lld:pubmed |