Patients' opinion of mammography screening services: Immediate results versus delayed results due to interpretation by two observers

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 168, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 1085-1089

  Hulka, Carol A ^a   Slanetz, Priscilla J ^b   Halpern, Elkan F ^b   Hall, Deborah A ^b   McCarthy, Kathleen A ^b   Moore, Richard ^b   Boutin, Stephanie ^c   Kopans, Daniel B ^b  

^a BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MAMMOGRAPHY; NORMAL HUMAN; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT RIGHT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0030938164     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/ajr.168.4.9124120     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Liu S, Bassctt LW, Sayre J. Women's attitudes about receiving mammographie results directly from radiologists. Radiology I994;I93:783-786
2. Lind SE, Kopans D, Good NIJD. Patients' preferences for learning the results of mammographie examinations. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1992:23: 223-232
3. Mammography quality standards: proposed rules. Part II. Rockville, MD: Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, 1996. Federal Register. April 13,1996;61:I4856-14920
4. Yin D, Forman HP, Langlotz CP. Evaluating health services: the importance of patients' preferences and quality of life. AJR 1995;165:1323-I328
5. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AS. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994;19l:241-244
6. Hulka Ca, Mrose H, McCarthy KA, et al. Value of double reading in screening mammography (abstr). Radiology 1994;193(P):239
7. Rubin E, Frank MS, Stanley RJ, Bemreuter WK, Han SY. Patient-initiated mobile mammography: analysis of the patients and problems. South MedJ 1990;83:178-184
8. Cardenosa G, Eklund GW. Rate of compliance with recommendations for additional mammographie views and biopsies. Radiology 1991;181: 359-361
9. Huffman NY, Janus J, Destounis S, Logan-Young W. When the patient asks for the results of her mammogram, how should the radiologist reply? AJR 1994; 162:597-599
10. Bassett LW, Hendrick RE, Bassord TL, et al. Quality determinants of mammography: clinical practice guideline no. 13. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1994. Agency for Elealth Care Policy and Research publication no. 95-0632
11. Sickles EA, Weber WN, Galvin HB, Ominsky SH, Sollitto RA. Mammographie screening: how to operate successfully at low cost Radiology 1986; 160:95-97
12. Bird RE, McLelland R. How to initiate and operate a low-cost screening mammography center. fàdiology 1986:161:43-47
13. McLelland R. Low-cost mass screening with mammography as a means of reducing overall mortality from breast cancer. Radial Clin North Am 1987:25:1007-1013
14. Bird RE. Low-cost screening mammography: report on finances and review of 21,716 consecutive cases. Radiology 1989;171:87-90
15. Clark RA. Economic issues in screening mammography. AJR 1992;158:527-534 '