Correlation of radiologist rank as a measure of skill in screening and diagnostic interpretation of mammograms

Radiology

Volumn 238, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 446-453

  Beam, Craig A ^a,b   Conant, Emily F ^a   Sickles, Edward A ^a  

^a H LEE MOFFITT CANCER CENTER AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST TUMOR; CONFERENCE PAPER; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HUMAN; JOB PERFORMANCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RADIOLOGIST; RATING SCALE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SKILL;

CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; RADIOLOGY;

EID: 31144463099     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2382042066     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (11)

1. Bassett LW, Monsees BS, Smith RA, et al. Survey of radiology residents: breast imaging training and attitudes. Radiology 2003;227:862-869.
2. Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. The association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:282-290.
3. Dee KE, Sickles EA. Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations: comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176:729-733.
4. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
5. Hanley JA. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) methodology: the state of the art. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging 1989;29:307-335.
6. Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C, et al. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:369-375.
7. Beam CA. Random-effects models in the receiver operating characteristic curve-based assessment of the effectiveness of diagnostic imaging technology: concepts, approaches and issues. Acad Radiol 1995;2(suppl 1):S4-S13.
8. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under an ROC curve. Radiology 1982;143:29-35.
9. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. Boca Raton, Fla: Chapman & Hall/CRC, 1991;286.
10. Begg CB, McNeil BJ. Assessment of radiologic tests: control of bias and other design considerations. Radiology 1988;167:565-569.
11. Ransohoff DF, Feinstem AR. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med 1978;299:926-993.