Improving the detection of cancer in the screening of mammograms

Journal of Medical Screening

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 24-30

  Laming, D ^a   Warren, R ^b  

^a UK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Inspection tasks; Vigilance

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ALERTNESS; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; LIBRARY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGIST; WORKING TIME;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; EVALUATION STUDIES; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOLOGY;

EID: 0034025882     PISSN: 09691413     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jms.7.1.24     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Forrest A. Breast Cancer Screening. London: HMSO, 1986.
2. Burrell HC, Sibbering M, Wilson ARM, et al. Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognostic factors. Radiology 1996;199:811-17.
3. Jones RD, McLean L, Young JR, et al. Proportion of cancers detected at the first incident screen which were false negative at the prevalent screen. The Breast 1996;5:339-43.
4. Fracheboud J, Boer R, van Ineveld BM, et al. Landelijke evaluatie van bevolkingsonderzoek naar borstkanker in Nederland. Instituut Maatschappelijke Gezondheidszorg, Erasmus Universiteit, Rotterdam & Afdeling Epidemiologie/ Instituut voor Radiologie, Katholieke Universiteit, Nijmegen, 1999.
5. Vitak B. Invasive interval cancers in the Östergötland Mammographic Screening Programme: radiological analysis. Eur Radiol 1998;8:639-46.
6. Mackworth NH. Researches in the measurement of human performance. Medical Research Council Special Report Series No. 268. London: HMSO, 1950.
7. Laming D. The Measurement of Sensation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
8. Green DM, Swets JA. Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley, 1966.
9. Fitzpatrick J, Utting J, Kenyon E, et al. Internal review into the laboratory at the Women's Hospital, Liverpool. Liverpool Health Authority, 8th September 1987.
10. Howarth CI, Bulmer MG. Non-random sequences in visual threshold experiments. Q J Exp Psychol 1956;8:163-71.
11. Laming D. The human element in medical screening. J Med Screen 1995;2:52-5.
12. Laming D. Screening cervical smears. Br J Psychol 1995;86: 507-16.
13. Wilkinson RT. Artificial "signals" as an aid to an inspection task. Ergonomics 1964;7:63-72.
14. Daly CA, Apthorp L, Field S. Second round cancers: how many were visible on the first round of the UK national breast screening programme, three years earlier? Clin Radiol 1998;53:25-8.
15. Duncan AA, Wallis MG. Classifying interval cancers. Clin Radiol 1995;50:774-7.
16. Duncan KA, Needham G, Gilbert FJ, et al. Incident round cancers: what lessons can we learn? Clin Radiol 1998;53: 29-32.
17. Maes R, Dronkers D, Hendriks J, et al. Do non-specific minimal signs in a biennial mammographic breast cancer screening programme need further diagnostic assessment? Br J Radiol 1997;70:34-8.
18. Swets JA, Tanner WP Jr, Birdsall TG. Decision processes in perception. Psychol Rev 1961;68:301-40.
19. Callaway MP, Boggis CRM, Astley SA, et al. The influence of previous films on screening mammographic interpretation and detection of breast carcinoma. Clin Radiol 1997;52:527-9.
20. Cowley H, Gale A. Medical ergonomics: minimising human error in the detection of breast cancer. In: Robertson SA (ed), Contemporary Ergonomics. London: Taylor & Francis, 1996:379-84.
21. Thomas EAC, Legge D. Probability matching as a basis for detection and recognition decisions. Psychol Rev 1970;77: 65-72.
22. Tanner TA Jr, Rauk JA, Atkinson RC. Signal recognition as influenced by information feedback. J Math Psychol 1970;7:259-74.
23. Markowitz J, Swets JA. Factors affecting the slope of empirical ROC curves: comparison of binary and rating responses. Perception & Psychophysics 1967;2:91-100.