Training community resource center and clinic personnel to prompt patients in listing questions for doctors: Follow-up interviews about barriers and facilitators to the implementation of consultation planning-1

Nt the Consultation Planning intervention.<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Training community resource center and clinic personnel to prompt patients in listing questions for doctors: Follow-up interviews about barriers and facilitators to the implementation of consultation planning"</p><p>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/6</p><p>Implementation science : IS 2008;3():6-6.</p><p>Published online 31 Jan 2008</p><p>PMCID:PMC2270865.</p><p></p

Training community resource center and clinic personnel to prompt patients in listing questions for doctors: Follow-up interviews about barriers and facilitators to the implementation of consultation planning-0

Nt the Consultation Planning intervention.<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Training community resource center and clinic personnel to prompt patients in listing questions for doctors: Follow-up interviews about barriers and facilitators to the implementation of consultation planning"</p><p>http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3/1/6</p><p>Implementation science : IS 2008;3():6-6.</p><p>Published online 31 Jan 2008</p><p>PMCID:PMC2270865.</p><p></p

Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships

Countries with centralized, high-volume mammography screening programs, such as the U.K. and Sweden, emphasize high specificity (low percentage of false positives) and high sensitivity (high percentage of true positives). By contrast, the United States does not have centralized, high-volume screening programs, emphasizes high sensitivity, and has lower average specificity. We investigated whether high sensitivity can be achieved in the context of high specificity and whether the number of mammograms read per radiologist (reader volume) drives both sensitivity and specificity. Methods: The U.K.’s National Health Service Breast Screening Programme uses the PERFORMS 2 test as a teaching and assessment tool for radiologists. The same 60-film PERFORMS 2 test was given to 194 high-volume U.K. radiologists and to 60 U.S. radiologists, who were assigned to low-, medium-, or high-volume groups on the basis of the number of mammograms read per month. The standard binormal receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) model was fitted to the data of individual readers. Detection accuracy was measured by the sensitivity at specificity = 0.90, and differences among sensitivities were determined by analysis of variance. Results: The average sensitivity at specificity = 0.90 was 0.785 for U.K. radiologists, 0.756 for high-volume U.S. radiologists, 0.702 for medium-volume U.S. radiologists, and 0.648 for low-volume U.S. radiologists. At this specificity, low-volume U.S. radiologists had statistically significantly lower sensitivity than either high-volume U.S. radiologists or U.K. radiologists, and medium-volume U.S. radiologists had statistically significantly lower sensitivity than U.K. radiologists (P<.001, for all comparisons). Conclusions: Reader volume is an important determinant of mammogram sensitivity and specificity. High sensitivity (high cancer detection rate) can be achieved with high specificity (low false-positive rate) in high-volume centers. This study suggests that there is great potential for optimizing mammography screening

Additional file 1: of Improved analgesia and reduced post-operative nausea and vomiting after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for total mastectomy

UCSF Opioid Equivalence Table. (PDF 238 kb

Visualization of individual copy number measurements without matched normal samples

<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "Analysis of molecular inversion probe performance for allele copy number determination"</p><p>http://genomebiology.com/2007/8/11/R246</p><p>Genome Biology 2007;8(11):R246-R246.</p><p>Published online 20 Nov 2007</p><p>PMCID:PMC2258201.</p><p></p> Copy number measurements for tumor 48 in genome order from chromosome 1 on the left to chromosome 22 and X on the right. Data are segregated by higher and lower copy number estimates and by homozygosity or heterozygosity. Blue and orange data points are the higher allele copy measurement while green and red data points are the lower copy number measurements. Blue and red data points are homozygous alleles while orange and green are heterozygous alleles. (a) The entire genome. (b) Chromosome 1 through the first 100 Mbp of chromosome 5. (c) Chromosome 1 and the first 50 Mbp of chromosome 2, showing key features of ACN data: an amplification is seen near position 5e7; an extra copy of 1q is seen between ~1.5e8 and 2.5e8; a deletion of 1 copy is seen on the p arm of chromosome 2 between ~2.5e8 and 3e8 (observed in (b) as a complete loss of one copy of chromosome 2). A small section of chromosome 5 from tumor 44. One chromosome is at copy number 0.5 across this region, which indicates a loss of that chromosome. The black arrow shows a region at total copy number 2, which likely includes reduplication of the lost chromosome in the tumor. The red arrow shows a region where both alleles are at copy number 0.5, suggesting a complete deletion. The green arrow shows copy number 1 for the yellow allele

Additional file 1: of Heterogeneous drug penetrance of veliparib and carboplatin measured in triple negative breast tumors

Technical aspects of the MALDI-MSI, ICP-MS and LC-MS methods. Technical aspects of the MALDI-MSI, ICP-MS, LC-MS, DCE-MRI method development and supplements on the PK model development. (PDF 1631 kb