Performs: A self-assessment scheme for radiologists in breast screening

Seminars in Breast Disease

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 148-152

  Gale, Alastair G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF DERBY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CALCIFICATION; CANCER SCREENING; DATA ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; EXPERIENCE; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; REVIEW; SELF EVALUATION; TASK PERFORMANCE; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 4344567254     PISSN: 10924450     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.sembd.2004.03.006     Document Type: Review

References (25)

1. Patnick J (ed): Annual Review 2003: Saving Women for 15 Years, NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. London, Citigate Communications, 2003
2. Pritchard J: Quality Assurance Guidelines for Mammography. London, NHS Breast Screening Programme, 1989
3. Royal College of Radiologists: Quality Assurance Guidelines for Radiologists, 1990
4. Warren Burhenne LJ, Smith RA, Tabar L, et al: Mammographic screening: International perspective. Semin Roentgenol 36:187-194, 2001
5. Publication No. 102-539.
6. Gale AG, Walker GE: Visual search in breast cancer screening, in Brogan D, Gale AG, Carr K (eds): Visual Search II. London, Taylor & Francis, 1993, pp 231-238
7. Mugglestone MD, Gale AG: CAD implementation: Implications from real life visual search of screening cases, in Karssemeijer N, Thijssen M, Hendriks J, van Erning L, (eds). Digital Mammography 1998. London, Kluwer, 1998, pp 375-382
8. Gale AG: Human response to visual stimuli, in Hendee W, Wells P (eds): Perception of Visual Information. 2nd ed, New York, Springer Verlag, 1997, pp 127-147
9. Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Carmody D: Visual scanning, pattern recognition, and decision making in pulmonary nodule detection. Invest Radiol 13:175-181, 1978
10. Dimmes J, Moss S, Melia J, et al: Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of double reading of mammograms in breast cancer screening: Findings of a systematic review. The Breast 10: 455-463, 2001
11. Gale AG, Walker GE: Design for performance: Quality assessment in a national breast screening programme, in Lovesay E, (ed). Ergonomics-Design for Performance. London, Taylor & Francis, 1991, pp 197-202
12. Savage CJ, Gale AG, Pawley EF, et al: To err is human, to compute divine? in Gale AG, Astley SM, Dance DR et al (ed): Digital Mammography Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1994, pp 405-414
13. Cowley HC, Gale AG: Minimising human error in the detection of breast cancer, in Robertson SA (ed): Contemporary Ergonomics 1996. London, Taylor & Francis, 1996, pp 379-384
14. Gale AG, Roebuck EJ, Riley P, et al: Computer aids to mammographic diagnosis. Br J Radiol 60:887-891, 1987
15. Whatmough P, Gale AG, Wilson, ARM: Do radiologists agree on the importance of mammographic features? in Doi K, Giger ML, Nishikawa RM et al (ed): Digital Mammography 1996. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1996, pp 111-116
16. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging and Reporting System (BI-RADS) (ed 3). Reston, VA, American College of Radiology, 1998
17. Cowley HC, Gale AG: Approaches to computer assisted training in mammographic screening, in Doi K, Giger ML, Nishikawa RM et al (ed): Digital Mammography. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1996, pp 117-122
18. Cowley HC, Gale AG, Wilson ARM: Mammographic training sets for improving breast cancer detection, in Kundel HL, (ed): Medical Imaging 1996: Image Perception. Proceedings of the SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 1996, pp 102-112
19. Cowley HC, Gale AG: Breast cancer screening: Comparison of radiologists' performance in a self-assessment scheme and in actual breast screening, in Krupinski EA (ed): Medical Imaging 1999: Image Perception and Performance. Proceedings of the SPIE, Bellingham, WA, Vol 3663, 1999, pp 157-168
20. Cowley HC, Gale AC: Time of day effects on mammographic film reading performance, in Kundel HL (ed) Medical Imaging 1997: Image Perception (vol. 3036). Proceedings of the SPIE, Bellingham, WA, Vol 3036, 1997, pp 212-221
21. Scott HJ, Gale AG, Wooding DS: Breast Screening Technologists: does real-life case volume affect performance? in Chakraborty DP, Eckstein MP (eds): Image Perception, Observer Performance and Technology Assessment. Proceedings of the SPIE, Bellingham, WA, Vol 5372, in press
22. Esserman L, Cowley H, Eberle C, et al: Improving the accuracy of mammography: Volume and outcome relationships. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:369-375, 2002
23. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al: Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. J Am Med Assoc 290:2129-2137, 2003
24. Mugglestone MD, Gale AG, Wilson ARM: Perceptual processes involved in mammographic film interpretation, in Kundel HL (ed): Medical Imaging 1997: Image Perception. Proceedings of SPIE, Bellingham, WA, Vol 3036, 1997, pp 212-221
25. Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA: Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. J Nat Cancer Inst 95:282-290, 2003