Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologists' experience?

Journal of Women's Health

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 443-449

  Elmore, Joann G ^a,d   Wells, Carolyn K ^b   Howard, Debra H ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c WEILL CORNELL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EXPERIENCE; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST;

EID: 0031837647     PISSN: 10597115     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/jwh.1998.7.443     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. McLelland R, Hendrick RE, Zinninger MD, Wilcox PA. The American College of Radiology Mammography Accreditation Program. Am J Roentgenol 1991;157:473.
2. Hendrick RE. Quality assurance in mammography: Accreditation, legislation, and compliance with quality assurance standards. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;30:243.
3. Eklund GW, Cardenosa G, Parsons W. Assessing adequacy of mammographic image quality. Radiology 1994;190:297.
4. Baines CJ, McFarlane DV, Miller AB. The role of the reference radiologist: Estimates of inter-observer agreement and potential delay in cancer detection in the National Breast Screening Study. Invest Radiol 1990;25:971-6.
5. D'Orsi CJ, Kopans DB. Mammographic feature analysis. Semin Roentgenol 1993;28:204.
6. Spring DB, Kimbrell-Wilmot K. Evaluating the success of mammography at the local level: How to conduct an audit of your practice. Radiol Clin North Am 1987;25:983.
7. Sickles EA. Quality assurance: How to audit your own mammography practice. Radiol Clin North Am 1992;30:265.
8. Food and Drug Administration. Quality Standards and Certification Requirements for Mammography Facilities (21 CFR Part 900) Federal Register 1993;58: 67565.
9. Skolnick AA. Interim federal quality standards for nation's mammography facilities acquire force of law. JAMA 1994;271:735.
10. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994;331:1493.
11. Statistical Analysis System. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 1989.
12. Linver MN, Paster SB, Rosenberg RD, Key CR, Stidley CA, King WV. Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: 2-year medical audit of 38,663 cases. Radiology 1992;184:39.
13. Pamilo M, Anttinen I, Soiva M, Roiha M, Suramo I. Mammography screening - reasons for recall and the influence of experience on recall in the Finnish system. Clin Radiol 1990;41:384.
14. Anttinen I, Pamilo M, Soiva M, Roiha M. Double reading of mammography screening films - One radiologist or two? Clin Radiol 1993;48:414.
15. Thurfjell EL, Lernevall KA, Taube AA. Benefit of independent double reading in a population-based mammography screening program. Radiology 1994; 191:241.
16. Centor RM. Signal detectability: The use of ROC curves and their analyses. Med Decis Making 1991;11: 102.
17. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29.