Association between Radiologists' Experience and Accuracy in Interpreting Screening Mammograms

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 8, Issue , 2008, Pages

  Molins, Eduard ^a   Macià, Francesc ^a   Ferrer, Francesc ^a   Maristany, Maria Teresa ^a   Castells, Xavier ^a  

^a HOSPITAL DEL MAR   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGIST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY; STANDARD; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; RADIOLOGY;

EID: 43549096152     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-91     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. JG Elmore CK Wells CH Lee DH Howard AR Feinstein, N Engl J Med 1994 331 1493 1499 7969300 10.1056/NEJM199412013312206
2. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Findings from a national sample. CA Beam PM Layde DC Sullivan, Arch Intern Med 1996 156 209 213 8546556 10.1001/archinte.156.2.209
3. Radiologist uncertainty and the interpretation of screening. PA Carney JG Elmore LA Abraham MS Gerrity RE Hendrick SH Taplin WE Barlow GR Cutter SP Poplack CJ D'Orsi, Med Decis Making 2004 24 255 264 15155014 10.1177/0272989X04265480
4. Assessment of the psychological impact of a breast screening programme. AR Bull MJ Campbell, Br J Radiol 1991 64 762 510 515 2070180
5. Short- and long-term anxiety and depression in women recalled after breast cancer screening. C Lampic E Thurfjell J Bergh PO Sjoden, Eur J Cancer 2001 37 463 469 11267855 10.1016/S0959-8049(00)00426-3
6. Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme. X Castells E Molins F Macià J Epidemiol Community Health 2006 60 316 321 16537348 10.1136/jech.2005.042119
7. Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program. I Theberge N Hebert-Croteau A Langlois D Major J Brisson, CMAJ 2005 172 2 195 199 15655240
8. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. WE Barlow C Chi PA Carney SH Taplin C D'Orsi G Cutter RE Hendrick JG Elmore, J Natl Cancer Inst 2004 96 24 1840 1850 15601640 15601640
9. Does practice make perfect when interpreting mammography? Part II. JG Elmore DL Miglioretti PA Carney, J Natl Cancer Inst 2003 95 250 252 12591973
10. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. L Kan IA Olivotto LJ Warren Burhenne EA Sickles AJ Coldman, Radiology 2000 215 2 563 567 10796940
11. Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologists' experience? JG Elmore CK Wells DH Howard, J Womens Health 1998 7 4 443 449 9611702
12. European Commission. N Perry M Broeders C de Wolf S Törnberg R Holland L von Karsa E Puthaar eds, European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities Fourth 2006
13. Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. JA Baker PJ Kornguth CE Floyd Jr, AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996 166 4 773 778 8610547
14. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS guidelines by community radiologists: concordance of assessments and recommendations assigned to screening mammograms. C Lehman S Holt S Peacock E White N Urban, AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002 179 1 15 20 12076896
15. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. R Smith-Bindman P Chu DL Miglioretti C Quale RD Rosenberg G Cutter B Geller P Bacchetti EA Sickles K Kerlikowske, J Natl Cancer Inst 2005 97 5 358 367 15741572
16. Improving the accuracy of mammography: volume and outcome relationships. L Esserman H Cowley C Eberle A Kirkpatrick S Chang K Berbaum A Gale, J Natl Cancer Inst 2002 94 5 369 375 11880475
17. Association of volume and volume-independent factors with accuracy in screening mammogram interpretation. CA Beam EF Conant EA Sickles, J Natl Cancer Inst 2003 95 4 282 290 12591984
18. Improving interpretive performance in mammography. Institute of Medicine, Improving breast imaging quality standards Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, Sharyl N, Ball J, 2005 24 44
19. Quality Assurance Guidelines for Radiologists. http://www. cancerscreening.nhs.uk/breastscreen/publications/nhsbsp59.html
20. Re: Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. R Clark, J Natl Cancer Inst 2005 97 936 15956657
21. Twenty-year follow-up of the breast cancers diagnosed during the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project. CR Smart C Byrne RA Smith L Garfinkel AH Letton GD Dodd OH Beahrs, CA Cancer J Clin 1997 47 3 134 149 9152171
22. Variability and accuracy in mammographic interpretation using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System. K Kerlikowske D Grady J Barclay SD Frankel SH Ominsky EA Sickles V Ernster, J Natl Cancer Inst 1998 90 23 1801 1809 10.1093/jnci/90.23.1801 9839520
23. Comparing the performance of mammography screening in the USA and the UK. R Smith-Bindman R Ballard-Barbash DL Miglioretti J Patnick K Kerlikowske, J Med Screen 2005 12 50 54 15814020 10.1258/0969141053279130
24. International comparison of performance measures for screening mammography: can it be done? BC Yankaskas CN Klabunde R Ancelle-Park G Renner H Wang J Fracheboud G Pou JL Bulliard, J Med Screen 2004 11 187 193 15624239 10.1258/0969141042467430
25. Breast cancer screening. RA Smith, IARC handbooks of cancer prevention Lyon: IARC Press, Vainio H, Bianchini F, 2002 2 119 134