Imaging technology and practice assessment studies: Importance of the baseline or reference performance level

Radiology

Volumn 247, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 8-11

  Gur, David ^a  

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EDITORIAL; IMAGING SYSTEM; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EVALUATION; OBSERVER VARIATION;

DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; OBSERVER VARIATION; ROC CURVE; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 42449087251     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2471070822     Document Type: Editorial

References (12)

1. Warren Burhenne LJ, Wood SA, D'Orsi CJ, et al. Potential contribution of computer-aided detection to the sensitivity of screening mammography. Radiology 2000;215(2):554-562. [Published correction appears in Radiology 2000;216(1):306.]
2. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005;353(17):1773-1783.
3. Lehman CD, Gatsonis C, Kuhl CK, et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007;356(13):1295-1303.
4. Center for Devices and Radiological Health. CDRH consumer information: new device approval - ImageChecker CT CAD Software System (model LN-1000)-P030012. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ mda/docs/p030012.html. Published July 8, 2004. Updated August 19, 2004. Accessed June 25, 2007.
5. Alpert S. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Approval letter for M1000 Image-Checker for mammography. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf/p970058.pdf.Published June 26, 1998. Accessed June 25, 2007.
6. Gur D, Sumkin JH, Rockette HE, et al. Changes in breast cancer detection and mammography recall rates after the introduction of a computer-aided detection system. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96(3):185-190.
7. Wagner RF, Metz CE, Campbell G. Assessment of medical imaging systems and computer aids: a tutorial review. Acad Radiol 2007;14(6):723-748.
8. Birdwell RL, Bandodkar P, Ikeda DM. Computer-aided detection with screening mammography in a university hospital setting. Radiology 2005;236(2):451-457.
9. Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001;220(3):781-786.
10. Dean JC, Ilvento CC. Improved cancer detection using computer-aided detection with diagnostic and screening mammography: prospective study of 104 cancers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187(1):20-28.
11. Fenton JJ, Taplin SH, Carney PA, et al. Influence of computer-aided detection on performance of screening mammography. N Engl J Med 2007;356(14):1399-1409.
12. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004;351(5):427-437.