Performance assessment for radiologists interpreting screening mammography

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 26, Issue 7, 2007, Pages 1532-1551

  Woodard, Dawn B ^a   Gelfand, Alan E ^a   Barlow, William E ^b   Elmore, J G ^c  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center   (United States)

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

Author keywords

Hierarchical; Mammography; Sensitivity; Specificity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; JOB PERFORMANCE; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PREDICTION; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RADIOLOGIST; RECALL BIAS; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; REGISTER; RISK FACTOR; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES; WORK CAPACITY;

ADULT; AGED; BAYES THEOREM; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OBSERVER VARIATION; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 33947170512     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.2633     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS™). Reston, VA, 1998.
2. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, Taplin SH, D'Orsi CJ, Cutter G, Hendrick RE, Elmore JG. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2004; 96:1840-1850.
3. Elmore JG, Nakano CY, Koepsell TD, Desnick LM, D'Orsi CJ, Ransohoff DF. International variation in screening mammography interpretations in community-based programs. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2003; 95:1384-1393.
4. Mammography Quality Standards Act. Publication L, October 1992; 102-539.
5. Landon BE, Normand ST. Physician clinical performance assessment: prospects and barriers. Journal of the American Medical Association 2003; 290:1183-1212.
6. Iezzoni LI, Greenberg LG. Widespread assessment of risk-adjusted outcomes: lessons from local initiatives. Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement 1994; 20:305-316.
7. Landon BE, Iezzoni LI, Ash AS, Shwartz M, Daley J, Hughes JS, Mackiernan YD. Judging hospitals by severity-adjusted mortality rates: the case of CABG surgery. Inquiry 1996; 33:155-166.
8. Salem-Schatz S, Morre G, Rucker M, Pearson SD. The case for case-mix adjustment in practice profiling: when good apples look bad. Journal of the American Medical Association 1994; 272:871-874.
9. Normand ST, Glickman ME, Gatsonis CA. Statistical methods for profiling providers of medical care: issues and applications. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1997; 92:803-814.
10. Rosner B. Fundamentals of Biostatistics (5th edn). Duxbury, 2000; 63-65.
11. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, Ernster VL, Rosenberg RD, Carney PA, Barlow WE, Geller K, Kerlikowske BM, Edwards BK, Lynch CF, Urban N, Chrvala CA, Key CR, Poplack SP, Worden JK, Kessler LG. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. American Journal of Roentgenology 1997; 169:1001-1008.
12. Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, Geller BM, Abraham LA, Taplin SH, Dignan M, Cutter G, Ballard-Barbash R. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Annals of Internal Medicine 2003; 138:168-175.
13. Paliwal P, Gelfand AE, Abraham L, Barlow WE, Elmore JG. Examining accuracy of screening mammography using an event order model. Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25:267-283.
14. Gelfand AE, Smith AF. Sampling based approaches to calculating marginal densities. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1990; 85:398-409.
15. Gilks WR, Wild P. Adaptive rejection sampling for Gibbs sampling. Applied Statistics 1992; 41:337-348.