Mammography is one of the most delicate processes involving vulnerable tissues. There is a need to consider several factors such as device sensitivity, resolution, and ease of use before buying the equipment. In most cases, every manufacturer provides some data associated with the machine’s functionality (Suleiman et al., 2017). However, this information mostly refers to testing results, which may differ from the actual outcomes when using the appliance.
For instance, the mammogram machine manufacturer indicates that the gadget has a specificity of 0.88, sensitivity of 0.91, PPV+ of 0.87, and PPV- of 0.88. These figures refer to the output under the laboratory conditions; hence, they may differ from the real therapy setup. For example, the true application of the instrument indicates the following values: True Positives = 647, True Negatives = 315, False Positives = 38, and False Negatives = 51. These variances in information can result in challenging decisions when buying the product, especially due to the service’s nature for buying it.
The two sets of data have implications for the final decision of buying the mammogram machine. First, while testers may exaggerate the laboratory data, most manufacturers understand the need for quality products and their impacts on the customer, which is why they may not provide substandard devices. Moreover, each instrument usually passes through external quality standard checks before releasing them to the public.
Second, during testing, the testers try as much as possible to make the laboratory conditions mimic real-life settings for using the machine. Sometimes, extreme conditions are created to ensure that the devices can operate optimally. Third, while it is easy to believe the nurse epidemiologist’s actual data using the machine, it is critical to understand that no information regarding the period the said mammogram has been in use (Lehman et al., 2017). Therefore, since the manufacturer provides possible interventions in case the product does not work as expected, it is easier and more economical to buy a new device from the producer.
References
Lehman, C.D., Arao, R.F., Sprague, B.L., Lee, J.M., Buist, D.S., Kerlikowske, K., Henderson, L.M., Onega, T., Tosteson, A.N., Rauscher, G.H. and Miglioretti, D.L. (2017). National performance benchmarks for modern screening digital mammography: Update from the breast cancer surveillance consortium. Radiology, 283(1), 49-58.
Suleiman, M. E., McEntee, M. F., Cartwright, L., Diffey, J., & Brennan, P. C. (2017). Diagnostic reference levels for digital mammography in New South Wales. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology, 61(1), 48-57.