AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 85, Issue 6 837-839, Copyright © 1995 by American Public Health Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Feldman, J
Right arrow Articles by Scott, H D
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Feldman, J
Right arrow Articles by Scott, H D
Peer review of mammography interpretations in a breast cancer screening program.

J Feldman, R A Smith, R Giusti, B DeBuono, J P Fulton and H D Scott

Rhode Island Department of Health, Division of Preventive Health Services, Providence 02908, USA.

Mammograms from a statewide screening program were subjected to a blind review by a panel of expert mammographers. Ninety-five percent (173/182) of original normal mammograms and 53% (164/311) of original abnormal mammograms were reread as normal. In comparison with the expert panel community radiologists were more likely to request a repeat mammogram in 6 months than to interpret a mammogram as normal or address their uncertainty with an immediate diagnostic workup.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the American Public Health Association