Assessment of image quality and total performance in Norwegian mammography laboratories: Findings in a national survey based on different phantoms and ROC methodology

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 39, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 507-513

  Olsen, J B ^a   Skretting, A ^a   Widmark, A ^b  

^a OSLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^b NORWEGIAN RADIATION PROTECTION AUTHORITY   (Norway)

Author keywords

Mammography, phantoms; Quality assurance; ROC analysis, total performance

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; MAMMOGRAPHY; NORWAY; OBSERVER VARIATION; ROC CURVE; STANDARD;

FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; NORWAY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHANTOMS, IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; ROC CURVE;

EID: 0032161321     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02841859809172216     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. BARNES G. T. & HENDRICK R. E.: Mammography accreditation and equipment performance. Radiographics 14 (1994), 129.
2. BEVINGTON P. R. & ROBINSON D. K.: Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciences. 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill Inc., New York 1992.
3. CONWAY B. J., SULEIMAN O. H., REUTER F. G., ANTONSEN R. G. & SLAYTON R. J.: National survey of mammographic facilities in 1985, 1988, and 1992. Radiology 191 (1994), 323.
4. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (FDA), DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: 21 CFR, Parts 16 and 900. Quality mammography standards. Final rule. Federal Register, Government Printing Office, Washington DC, October 28, 1997; 62 (208), 55851-55901.
5. HANLEY J. A. & MCNEIL B. J.: The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143 (1982), 29.
6. HANLEY J. A. & MCNEIL B. J.: A method of comparing the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 148 (1983), 839.
7. JIANG Y., METZ C. E. & NISHIKAWA R. M.: A receiver operating characteristic partial area index for highly sensitise diagnostic tests. Radiology 201 (1996), 745.
8. MCCLISH D K.: Analyzing a portion of the ROC curve. Med. Decis. Making 9 (1989), 190.
9. MCCROHAN J. L., THOMPSON W. E., BUTLER P. F. et al.: Mammographic phantom evaluation project. HSS Publication (FDA) 83-8213 (National Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Rockville, MD 20857, USA) 1983.
10. METZ C. E.: ROC methodology in radiologic imaging. Invest. Radiol. 21 (1986), 720.
11. METZ C. E.: Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. Invest. Radiol. 24 (1989), 234.
12. OLERUD H. M., OLSEN J. B., WIDMARK A. & FOSMARK H.: A Norwegian survey of image quality, doses and film processing in mammography, with reference to two technical phantoms. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 67 (1996), 199.
13. OLSEN J. B. & SKRETTING A.: Detectability of simulated masses and calcifications in mammography. Development of a phantom and a new method for determination of receiver operating characteristics. Acta Radiol. 39 (1998), 501.
14. THIJSSEN M. A. O., YOUNG K. C. & VAN WOUDENBERG S.: The European protocol for the quality control of the physical and technical aspects of mammography screening. In: European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening. 2nd edn. Edited by C. M. J. de Wolf & N. M. Perry. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg 1996: Annex II-D.
15. VINING D. J. & GLADISH G. W.: Receiver operating characteristic curves. A basic understanding. Radiographies 12 (1992), 1147.