Reality check: Perceived versus actual performance of community mammographers

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 187, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 42-46

  Fenton, Joshua J ^a   Egger, Joseph ^b   Carney, Patricia A ^c   Cutter, Gary ^d   D'Orsi, Carl ^e   Sickles, Edward A ^f   Fosse, Jessica ^g   Abraham, Linn ^h   Taplin, Stephen H ^h,i   Barlow, William ^j   Hendrick, R Edward ^k   Elmore, Joann G ^g  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^c DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^e EMORY CLINIC   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

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

^h CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

ⁱ NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^j Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

^k NORTHWESTERN MEMORIAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Breast imaging; Mammography

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; COMMUNITY CARE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; JOB PERFORMANCE; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; NORMAL HUMAN; PERCEPTION; POSTAL MAIL; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; SCREENING TEST; SELF REPORT; UNITED STATES; BIOPSY; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL PRACTICE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PATIENT REFERRAL; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; RADIOGRAPHY;

BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES; DATA COLLECTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION;

EID: 33747118390     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.0455     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Saver BG, Taylor TR, Treadwell JR, Cole WG. Do physicians do as they say? The case of mammography. Arch Fam Med 1997; 6:543-548
2. Streja DA, Rabkin SW Factors associated with implementation of preventive care measures in patients with diabetes mellitus. Arch Intern Med 1999; 159:294-302
3. Myers RE, Hyslop T, Gerrity M, et al. Physician intention to recommend complete diagnostic evaluation in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999; 8:587-593
4. United States Food and Drug Administration. MQSA Final Regulations. Available at: www.fda.gov/cdrh/mammography/robohelp/START.HTM. Accessed January 12, 2005
5. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR 1997; 169:1001-1008
6. D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Feig S, et al. American College of Radiology (ACR). Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS), 3rd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 1998
7. Taplin SH, Ichikawa LE, Kerlikowske K, et al. Concordance of breast imaging reporting and data system assessments and management recommendations in screening mammography. Radiology 2002; 222:529-535
8. Liang KY, Zeger SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986; 4:695-702
9. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, Thomson O'Brien MA, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; CD000259
10. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 2003; 290:2129-2137
11. Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, Desnick LM, D'Orsi CJ, Ransohoff DF. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003; 95:1384-1393
12. Tanner L. U.S. mammogram results lag U.K. Chicago Tribune, October 29, 2003:7
13. Maugh TH. Study warns of mammogram false alarms. Los Angeles Times, April 16, 1998:1