Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 192, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 216-220

  Haygood, Tamara Miner ^a   Wang, Jihong ^a   Atkinson, E Neely ^a   Lane, Deanna ^a   Stephens, Tanya W ^a   Patel, Parul ^a,b   Whitman, Gary J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^b SUNY UPSTATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Digital images; Digital mammography; Efficiency; Screening mammography

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST ENDOPROSTHESIS; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RANK SUM TEST; SCREENING TEST;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; EFFICIENCY, ORGANIZATIONAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; OBSERVER VARIATION; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TASK PERFORMANCE AND ANALYSIS; TEXAS; WORKLOAD; X-RAY FILM;

EID: 58149250290     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.3608     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Berns EA, Hendrick RE, Solari M, et al. Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times. AJR 2006; 187:38-41
2. MQAS Facility Score Pad. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health. www.fda.gov/CDRH/MAMMOGRAPHY/scorecard- statistics.html. Accessed December 26, 2006; July 24, 2007; December 28, 2007; and April 23, 2008
3. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic performance of digital versus film mammography for breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:1773-1783
4. Skaane P, Hofvind S, Skjennald A. Randomized trial of screen-film versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading in population-based screening program: follow-up and final results of Oslo II study. Radiology 2007; 244: 708-717
5. Haygood TM, Whitman GJ, Atkinson EA, Nikolova RG, Sandoval SYC, Dempsey PJ. Results of a survey on digital screening mammography: prevalence, efficiency, and use of ancillary diagnostic aids. J Am Coll Radiol 2008; 5:585-592
6. Lewin JM, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, et al. Clinical comparison of full-field digital mammography and screen-film mammography for detection of breast cancer. AJR 2002; 179:671-677
7. Cole E, Pisano ED, Brown M, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Fischer Senoscan Digital Mammography versus screen-film mammography in a diagnostic mammography population. Acad Radiol 2004; 11:879-886
8. Skaane P, Young K, Skjennald A. Population-based mammography screening: comparison of screen-film and full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading - Oslo I study. Radiology 2003; 229:877-884
9. Skaane P, Skjennald A. Screen-film mammography versus full-field digital mammography with soft-copy reading: randomized trial in a population-based screening program-the Oslo II study. Radiology 2004; 232:197-204
10. Pisano ED, Hendrick RE, Yaffe MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of digital versus film mammography: exploratory analysis of selected population subgroups in DMIST. Radiology 2008; 246:376-383
11. 2008 Medicare Fee Schedule. Physicians' current procedural terminology, 4th ed. . www.trailblazerhealth.com/Payment/Fee%20Schedules/ Default.aspx?DomainID=1. Accessed October 16, 2008
12. Feig SA. Auditing and benchmarks in screening and diagnostic mammography. Radiol Clin North Am 2007; 45:791-800
13. Haygood TM, Whitman GJ, Wang J, et al. Where have all the seconds gone? (poster) 2008 annual meeting of the Society for Imaging Informatics, Seattle, WA, May 2008
14. Hemminger BM. Soft copy display requirements for digital mammography. J Digit Imaging 2003; 16:292-305
15. Pisano ED, Cole EB, Kistner EO, et al. Interpretation of digital mammograms: comparison of speed and accuracy of soft-copy versus printed-film display. Radiology 2002; 223:483-488