Perceptions of tongue lesions by dental hygiene students and otolaryngologists

Journal of Cancer Education

Volumn 17, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 191-195

  Gray, Lincoln ^a   Herrin, H Keith ^b   Stiernberg, Charles ^a   Novosad, Garland ^c   Tornwall, Ruth ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DENTAL BRANCH AT HOUSTON   (United States)

^c School of Dentistry   (United States)

^d LAMAR UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; MEDICAL PROFESSION; MEDICAL STUDENT; MOUTH CARCINOMA; MOUTH HYGIENE; OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOLOGY;

DECISION MAKING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; DENTAL HYGIENISTS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; OTOLARYNGOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; SOFTWARE; STUDENTS, HEALTH OCCUPATIONS; TONGUE; TONGUE NEOPLASMS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0036924396     PISSN: 08858195     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Greenlee RT, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics 2000. CA Cancer J Clin. 2000; 50:7-33.
2. Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics 1998. CA Cancer J Clin. 1998; 48:6-29.
3. Bull TR. A Color Atlas of E.N.T. Diagnosis. 2nd Ed. London, U.K.: Wolfe Medical Publications, 1987.
4. Burkhardt A, Maerker R. A Colour Atlas of Oral Cancers. London, U.K.: Wolfe Medical Publications, 1981.
5. Pruzansky S. How to Use SINDCAL, A Computer Program for Individual Differences in Multidimensional Scaling. Murray Hill, NJ: Bell Laboratories, 1983.
6. Kendall M, Gibbons J. Rank Correlation Methods. London, U.K.: Arnold, 1990.
7. Schiffman S, Reynolds M, Young F. Introduction to Multidimensional Scaling: Theory, Methods, and Applications. New York: Academic Press, 1981.
8. Kruskal J, Wish M. Multidimensional Scaling. London, U.K.: Sage, 1978.
9. Norman G, Trott A, Brooks L, Kinsey E, Smith M. Cognitive differences in clinical reasoning related to postgraduate training. Teach Learn Med. 1994; 6:114-20.
10. Dejonckere PH, Crevier L, Elbaz E, et al. Quantitative rating of video-laryngostroboscopy: A reliability study. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol. 1998; 119:259-60.
11. Bowman MA, Russell NK, Boekeloo BO, Rafi IZ, Rabin DL. The effect of educational preparation on physician performance with a sexually transmitted disease -simulated patient. Arch Intern Med. 1992; 152:1823-28.
12. Carney PA, Dietrich AJ, Freeman DH, Mott LA. The periodic health examination provided to asymptomatic older women: An assessment using standardized patients. Ann Intern Med. 1993; 119: 129-35.
13. Paez A, Coba JM, Murillo N, et al. Reliability of the routine cytological diagnosis in bladder cancer. Eur Urol. 1999; 35:228-32.
14. Schulman KA, Berlin JA, Harless W, et al. The effect of race and sex on physicians' recommendations for cardiac catheterization. N Engl J Med. 1999; 340:618-26.
15. Cummings RJ, Loveless EA, Campbell J, Samelson S, Mazur JM. Interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the system of King et al. for the classification of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis [see comments]. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998; 80:1107-11.
16. Dick PT, Shuckett BM, Tang B, Daneman A, Kooh SW. Observer reliability in grading nephrocalcinosis on ultrasound examinations in children. Pediatr Radiol. 1999; 29:68-72.
17. Smith BM, Hurwitz EL, Solsberg D, et al. Interobserver reliability of detecting lumbar intervertebral disc high-intensity zone on magnetic resonance imaging and association of high-intensity zone with pain and anular disruption. Spine. 1998; 23:2074-80.