Breastscreen Australia: How we handle variability in interpretive skills

Seminars in Breast Disease

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 123-127

  Kossoff, Marjorie ^a   Brothers, Lynne ^a   Cawson, Jennifer ^a   Crane, Christine ^a   Osborne, Jonathan ^a   Wylie, Elizabeth ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; BREAST CANCER; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOLOGIST; REVIEW; SKILL; TASK PERFORMANCE; TRAINING;

EID: 4344649044     PISSN: 10924450     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.sembd.2004.03.003     Document Type: Review

References (7)

1. Irwig I, Glasziou P, Barratt AI, et al: Review of the evidence about the value of mammographic screening in 40-49 year old women. Woolloomooloo, NSW, National Breast Cancer Centre, 1997
2. Kan I, Olivotto IA, Sickles EA, et al: A standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratio to assess reading volume and interpretation and cancer detection ratio to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 215:563-567, 2000
3. Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Meilo-Thomas C, et al: How experience and training influence mammography expertise. Acad Radiol 6:575-585, 1999
4. Elmore JG, Carney PA: Does practice make perfect when interpreting mammography? J Natl Cancer Inst 94:321-323, 2002
5. Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA: Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:282-290, 2003
6. National Accreditation Standards. BreastScreen Australia, Canberra, ACT, 2001
7. Yankaskas BC, Cleveland RJ, Schell MJ, et al: Association of recall rates with sensitivity and positive predictive values of screening mammography. AJR 177:543-549, 2001