Linked Life Data

9202592

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/9202592

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
6
pubmed:dateCreated
1997-7-14
pubmed:abstractText
The double reporting of screening mammograms has become an aim of most United Kingdom screening units although it is not Department of Health policy. It is recognized that mammogram reporting sensitivity improves with experience. This study was designed to assess how valuable double reporting has been in our unit. The data from the first screening round, including the interval cancers which were detected during the subsequent 3 years, were analysed. The reporting sensitivities of the less experienced radiologist improved during the 3 years of the first screening round from 90.6% to 98.9%. For the more experienced radiologist sensitivities ranged from 97.1% to 98.9%. Overall the increased sensitivity from double reporting over single reporting was 1.5% over the best to 4.2% over the worst single reader. With such a relatively small difference between single and double reporting and high individual reporting standards, it is hard to justify the additional resources required for double reporting.
pubmed:commentsCorrections
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Jun
pubmed:issn
0009-9260
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
52
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
466-8
pubmed:dateRevised
2004-11-17
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1997
pubmed:articleTitle
Just how valuable is double reporting in screening mammography?
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Radiology, Kent and Canterbury Hospital, UK.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article