Comparison of the validity and reliability of two image classification systems for the assessment of mammogram quality

Journal of Medical Screening

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 38-42

  Moreira, Conrad ^b   Svoboda, Kate ^c   Poulos, Ann ^d   Taylor, Richard ^a,c,e   Page, Andrew ^c   Rickard, Mary ^c  

^a State Co ordination Unit   (Australia)

^b New South Wales Government   (Australia)

^c CUMBERLAND HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BREAST CANCER; CLASSIFICATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EXPERT SYSTEM; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; OBSERVER VARIATION; RELIABILITY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARD; STATISTICS;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; NEW SOUTH WALES; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 15944405051     PISSN: 09691413     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1258/0969141053279149     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Duffy SW, Tabor L, Chen HH, et al. The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer 2002;95:458-69
2. Taylor R, Morrell S, Estoesta J, Brassil A. Mammography screening and breast cancer mortality in New South Wales, Australia. Cancer Causes Control 2004;15:543-50
3. World Health Organisation (WHO). International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention, vol 7: Breast Cancer Screening. Lyon: IARC Press, 2002
4. Eklund GW, Cardenosa G, Parsons W. Assessing adequacy of mammographic image quality. Radiology 1994;190:297-307
5. Lee L, Stickland V, Wilson R, Roebuck E. Fundamentals of Mammography. London: W B Saunders, 1995
6. Rickard MT. The quality mammographic image. A review of its components. Australas Radiol 1989;33:328-34
7. Bassett LW, Hirbawi IA, DeBruhl N, Hayes MK. Mammographic positioning: evaluation from the view box. Radiology 1993;188:803-6
8. Bassett LW. Clinical image evaluation. Radiol Clin North Am 1995;33:1027-39
9. Young KC, Wallis MG, Ramsdale ML. Mammographic film density and detection of small breast cancers. Clin Radiol 1994;49:461-5
10. Taplin SH, Rutter CM, Finder C, Mandelson MT, Houn F, White E. Screening mammography: clinical image quality and the risk of interval breast cancer. AJR 2002;178:797-803
11. National Health Service Breast Screening Programme. Quality Assurance Guidelines for Radiographers, NHSBSP Publication 30. Sheffield: NHSBSP, 2000
12. Breast Imaging Clinical Education Review Committee, BreastScreen NSW. Research Proposal: Evaluation of Mammogram Quality. A Comparison of 2 Image Classification Systems. Sydney: State Co-ordination Unit, BreastScreen NSW, 2001
13. Naylor S, York J. An evaluation of the use of pectoral muscle to nipple level as a component to assess the quality of the medio-lateral oblique mammogram. Radiography 1999;5:107-10
14. Naylor SM, Lee L, Evans AJ. A study to find the optimal orientation of the breast for the cranio caudal view, for screening purposes. Clin Radiol 1999;54:804-6
15. National Quality Management Committee BA. National Accreditation Standards: BreastScreen Australia Quality Improvement Program. Canberra: BreastScreen Australia, 2001
16. Fleiss JL. The measurement of interrater agreement In: Fleiss JL, ed. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. New York: Wiley, 1981;212-36
17. Armitage P, Berry G. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications, 1994
18. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159-74
19. STATA Version 5.0. Texas: STATA Corporation, 1997