Assessment of factors that affect the quality of performance and interpretation of sonography of adnexal masses

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Volumn 27, Issue 5, 2008, Pages 721-728

  Levine, Deborah ^a   Asch, Elizabeth ^b   Mehta, Tejas S ^a   Broder, Jennifer ^c   O'Donnell, Carl ^a   Hecht, Jonathan L ^a  

^a BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c BOSTON MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Malignancy; Ovarian mass; Quality assurance; Quality improvement

Indexed keywords

QUALITY ASSURANCE; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

ABDOMINAL IMAGING; EMERGENCY DEPARTMENTS; MALIGNANCY; MULTIPLE FACTORS; OVARIAN MASS; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; SONOGRAPHERS; TECHNICAL QUALITY;

ULTRASONIC IMAGING;

ADNEXA DISEASE; ADNEXAL MASS; ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; ECHOGRAPHY; EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL PRACTICE; OVARIECTOMY; QUALITY CONTROL; RADIOLOGIST; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; ECTOPIC PREGNANCY; EDUCATION; FEMALE GENITAL TRACT TUMOR; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MIDDLE AGED; PREGNANCY; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; RADIOLOGY; STANDARD; STATISTICS; TIME;

ADNEXAL DISEASES; ADULT; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FELLOWSHIPS AND SCHOLARSHIPS; FEMALE; GENITAL NEOPLASMS, FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; OVARIECTOMY; PREGNANCY; PREGNANCY, ECTOPIC; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; RADIOLOGY; TECHNOLOGY, RADIOLOGIC; TIME FACTORS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

EID: 45849094810     PISSN: 02784297     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7863/jum.2008.27.5.721     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Brown DL, Doubilet PM, Miller FH, et al. Benign and malignant ovarian masses: selection of the most discriminating gray-scale and Doppler sonographic features. Radiology 1998; 208:103-110.
2. Brown DL, Frates MC, Laing FC, et al. Ovarian masses: can benign and malignant lesions be differentiated with color and pulsed Doppler US? Radiology 1994; 190:333-336.
3. Levine D, Feldstein VA, Babcook CJ, Filly RA. Sonography of ovarian masses: poor sensitivity of resistive index for identifying malignant lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162: 1355-1359.
4. Sutantawibul A, Ruangvutilert P, Sunsaneevithayakul P, Boriboonhirunsarn D. A model for malignancy probability prediction of adnexal masses. J Med Assoc Thai 2003; 86: 742-749.
5. Marret H, Ecochard R, Giraudeau B, Golfier F, Raudrant D, Lansac J. Color Doppler energy prediction of malignancy in adnexal masses using logistic regression models. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20:597-604.
6. Twickler DM, Forte TB, Santos-Ramos R, McIntire D, Harris P, Scott D. The Ovarian Tumor Index predicts risk for malignancy. Cancer 1999; 86:2280-2290.
7. Tailor A, Jurkovic D, Bourne TH, Collins WP, Campbell S. Sonographic prediction of malignancy in adnexal masses using an artificial neural network. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 106:21-30.
8. Schutter EM, Sohn C, Kristen P, et al. Estimation of probability of malignancy using a logistic model combining physical examination, ultrasound, serum CA 125, and serum CA 72-4 in postmenopausal women with a pelvic mass: an international multicenter study. Gynecol Oncol 1998; 69: 56-63.
9. Botta G, Zarcone R. Trans-vaginal ultrasound examination of ovarian masses in premenopausal women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1995; 62:37-41.
10. Tay SK, Tan YY. Risk factors and a risk scoring system for the prediction of malignancy in ovarian cysts. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol 1992; 32:341-345.
11. Benacerraf BR, Finkler NJ, Wojciechowski C, Knapp RC. Sonographic accuracy in the diagnosis of ovarian masses. J Reprod Med 1990; 35:491-495.
12. Asch E, Levine D, Kim Y, Hecht JL. Histologic, surgical, and imaging correlations of adnexal masses. J Ultrasound Med 2008; 27:327-342.
13. Strife J, Kun L, Becker GJ, Dunnick N, Bosma J, Hattery R. The American Board of Radiology perspective on maintenance of certification, part IV: practice quality improvement for diagnostic radiology. Radiology 2007; 243:309-313.
14. Samei E. Why medical image perception? J Am Coll Radiol 2006; 3:400-401.
15. Smith M. Error and Variation in Diagnostic Radiology. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas; 1967.
16. Renfrew DL, Franken EA Jr, Berbaum KS, Weigelt FH, Abu-Yousef MM. Error in radiology: classification and lessons in 182 cases presented at a problem case conference. Radiology 1992; 183:145-150.