Reality Check: Perceived Versus Actual Performance of Community Mammographers
Joshua J. Fenton1,
Joseph Egger2,
Patricia A. Carney3,
Gary Cutter4,
Carl D'Orsi5,
Edward A. Sickles6,
Jessica Fosse7,
Linn Abraham8,
Stephen H. Taplin8,9,
William Barlow10,
R. Edward Hendrick11 and
Joann G. Elmore7
1 Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, Davis,
4860 Y St., Ste 2300, Sacramento, CA 95817.
2 Disease Control and Vector Biology Unit, Department of Infectious &
Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London,
England.
3 Department of Family & Community Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School,
Lebanon, NH.
4 Department of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham,
AL.
5 Breast Imaging Center, The Emory Clinic, Atlanta, GA.
6 Department of Radiology, University of California, San Francisco, San
Francisco, CA.
7 Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Harborview
Medical Center, Seattle, WA.
8 Group Health Cooperative, Center for Health Studies, Seattle, WA.
9 Present address: Applied Research Program, National Cancer Institute,
Bethesda, MD.
10 Cancer Research and Biostatistics, Seattle, WA.
11 Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Lynn Sage Breast Cancer Center, Chicago,
IL.

View larger version (11K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1 Scatterplot of radiologists' self-reported positive
predictive value (PPV2) compared with their actual PPV2.
Positive mammograms included recommendation for biopsy, fine-needle
aspiration, or surgery.
|
|

View larger version (11K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2 Scatterplot of radiologists' perceived and actual rates of
recommending immediate additional imaging.
|
|

CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
Copyright © 2006 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.