Radiologists' performance and their enjoyment of interpreting screening mammograms

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 192, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 361-369

  Geller, Berta M ^a   Bowles, Erin J A ^b   Sohng, Hee Yon ^c   Brenner, R James ^d   Miglioretti, Diana L ^b   Carney, Patricia A ^e   Elmore, Joann G ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d Carol Ann Read Breast Health Center   (United States)

^e OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer screening; Breast imaging specialists; Mammographers; Practice of radiology; Radiologists; Screening mammography

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTROLLED STUDY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; JOB PERFORMANCE; JOB SATISFACTION; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADULT; AGED; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; JOB SATISFACTION; LOGISTIC MODELS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PHYSICIANS; POPULATION SURVEILLANCE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGISTRIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 59349090308     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.08.1647     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. D'Orsi C, Tu S, Nakano C, et al. Current realities of delivering mammography services in the community: do challenges with staffing and scheduling exist? Radiology 2005; 235:391-395
2. Bassett L, Monsees B, Smith R, et al. Survey of radiology residents: breast imaging training and attitudes. Radiology 2003; 227:862-869
3. Smith-Bindman R, Miglioretti D, Rosenberg R, et al.; National Institutes of Health Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. Physician workload in mammography. AJR 2008; 190:526-532
4. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists: findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156:209-213
5. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feinstein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994; 331:1493-1499
6. Bassett LW. Breast imaging: current utilization, trends, and implications. AJR 2007; 189:612-613
7. Zafar HM, Lewis RS, Sunshine JH. Satisfaction of radiologists in the United States: a comparison between 2003 and 1995. Radiology 2007; 244:223-231
8. Lewis RS, Sunshine JH, Bhargavan M. A portrait of breast imaging specialists and of the interpretation of mammography in the United States. AJR 2006; 187:1167; [web]W456-W468
9. Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR 1997; 169:1001-1008
10. Elmore JG, Taplin SH, Barlow WE, et al. Does litigation influence medical practice? The influence of community radiologists' medical malpractice perceptions and experience on screening mammography. Radiology 2005; 236:37-46
11. Carney PA, Geller BM, Moffett H, et al. Current medicolegal and confidentiality issues in large, multicenter research programs. Am J Epidemiol 2000; 152:371-378
12. Carney P, Elmore J, Abraham L, et al. Radiologist uncertainty and the interpretation of screening. Med Decis Making 2004; 24:255-264
13. Gerrity MS, White KP, DeVillis RF, Dittus RS. Physicians' reactions to uncertainty: refining the constructs and scales 1. Motiv and Emot 1995; 19:175-191
14. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002; 225:165-175
15. Yankaskas BC, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, et al. Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States. Radiology 2005; 234:363-373
16. Miglioretti DL, Heagerty PJ. Marginal modeling of multilevel binary data with time-varying covariates. Biostatistics 2004; 5:381-398
17. Miglioretti DL, Heagerty PJ. Marginal modeling of nonnested multilevel data using standard software. Am J Epidemiol 2007; 165:453-463
18. Nass S, Ball J, eds.; Committee on Improving Mammography Quality Standards, National Cancer Policy Board, Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies. Improving breast imaging quality standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2005
19. Farria DM, Schmidt ME, Monsees BS, et al. Professional and economic factors affecting access to mammography: a crisis today, or tomorrow? Results from a national survey. Cancer 2005; 194:491-498
20. Barlow WE, Chi C, Carney PA, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004; 96:1840-1850
21. U.S. Census Bureau Website. Summary file 1: 2000 census of population and housing. Issued July 2007. www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf1.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2008
22. Licurse A, Saket DD, Sunshine JH, Maynard CD, Forman HP. Update on the diagnostic radiology employment market: findings through 2005. AJR 2006; 187:617; [web]W249-W254