Screening and diagnostic mammograms: why the gold standard does not shine more brightly.
The objective of this article was to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of both screening and diagnostic mammograms. We looked at twenty seven studies found online with keywords: mammography, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity using the search engines google.com and botbot.com and placed them into three tables, sorting them first by purpose: either screening or diagnostic studies, and then by study size. We found a wide range of values in the studies reported and a high rate of false positives in many of them as well. Although many clinicians use the mammogram so often and rely on those results, many would benefit by being able to see the wide range of data that is reported worldwide in a format as shown in this article.
St. James School of Medicine, Kralendijk, Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles.
Arjun
A
Sobti
Pamela
P
Sobti
Louis G
LG
Keith
D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000517:prevention & control; D005189:False Positive Reactions; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008327:Mammography / Q000592:standards* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000592:standards* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D014481:United States / Q000453:epidemiology; D016387:Women's Health