Does practice make perfect when interpreting mammography? Part II

Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Volumn 95, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 250-252

  Elmore, Joann G ^a   Miglioretti, Diana L ^b   Carney, Patricia A ^c  

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

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTIFACT REDUCTION; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTINUING EDUCATION; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; EDITORIAL; FOLLICULAR PHASE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL AUDIT; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLE SIZE; SELF REPORT; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SKILL; STATISTICAL MODEL;

EID: 0037453902     PISSN: 00278874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jnci/95.4.250     Document Type: Editorial

References (16)

1. Osler W. Sir William Osler Aphorisms. Springfield (IL): Charles C. Thomas; 1961. p. 129. Quoted from Thayer W, "Osler, the Teacher," Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin 1919;30:198.
2. Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:000-000.
3. Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C, Kirkpatrick A, Chang S, Berbaum K, et al. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:369-75.
4. Elmore JG, Carney PA. Does practice make perfect when interpreting mammography? J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:321-3.
5. Egglin TK, Feinstein AR. Context bias. A problem in diagnostic radiology. JAMA 1996;276:1752-5.
6. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. In press 2003.
7. Rutter CM, Taplin SH. Assessing mammographers' accuracy. A comparison of clinical and test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:443-50.
8. Van Belle G. Statistical rules of thumb. New York (NY): Wiley; 2002. p. 87-9.
9. Concato J, Feinstein AR, Holford TR. The risk of determining risk with multivariable models. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:201-10.
10. Burnside ES, Sickles EA, Sohlich RE, Dee KE. Differential value of comparison with previous examinations in diagnostic versus screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1173-7.
11. Christiansen CL, Wang F, Barton MB, Kreuter W, Elmore JG, Gelfand AE, et al. Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1657-66.
12. White E, Priscilla V, Mandelson M, Lehman C, Elmore J, Porter P, et al. Variation in mammographic breast density by time in menstrual cycle among women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:906-10.
13. Baines CJ, Vidmar M, McKeown-Eyssen G, Tibshirani R. Impact of menstrual phase on false-negative mammograms in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study. Cancer 1997;80:720-4.
14. Laya MB, Larson EB, Taplin SH, White E. Effect of estrogen replacement therapy on the specificity and sensitivity of screening mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996;88:643-9.
15. Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative, Investigators. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women-principal results from the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2002;288:321-33.
16. National Health Service (NHS) Breast Screening Radiologists Quality Assurance Committee. Quality assurance guidelines for radiologists. Sheffield (U.K.): National Health Service Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) Publication; May 1997.