Using a Tailored Web-based Intervention to Set Goals to Reduce Unnecessary Recall

Academic Radiology

Volumn 18, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 495-503

  Carney, Patricia A ^a   Aiello Bowles, Erin J ^b   Sickles, Edward A ^c   Geller, Berta M ^d   Feig, Stephen A ^e   Jackson, Sara ^f   Brown, David ^a   Cook, Andrea ^b,f   Yankaskas, Bonnie C ^g   Miglioretti, Diana L ^b,f   Elmore, Joann G ^f  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMAN; INTERNET; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RECALL;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, CONTINUING; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREVALENCE; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RADIOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79952186726     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2010.11.017     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Elmore J.G., Wells C.K., Lee C.H., et al. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994, 331:1493-1499.
2. Beam C.A., Layde P.M., Sullivan D.C. Variability in the Interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med 1996, 156:209-213.
3. Elmore J.G., Miglioretti D.L., Reisch L.M., et al. Screening mammograms by community radiologists: variability in false-positive rates. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002, 94:1373-1380.
4. Smith-Bindman R., Chu P., Miglioretti D.L., et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005, 97:358-367.
5. Carney P.A., Elmore J.G., Abraham L.A., et al. Radiologist uncertainty and the interpretation of screening mammography. Medical Decision Making 2004, 24:255-264.
6. Elmore J.G., Taplin S., Barlow W.E., 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.
7. Egger J.R., Cutter G.R., Carney P.A., et al. Mammographers' perception of women's breast cancer risk. Medical Decision Making 2005, 25:283-289.
8. Fenton J.J., Egger J., Carney P.A., et al. Reality check: perceived versus actual performance of community mammographers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006, 187:42-46.
9. Miglioretti D.L., Smith-Bindman R., Abraham L.A., et al. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007, 99:1854-1863.
10. Taplin S.H., Abraham L.A., Barlow W.E., et al. Mammography facility characteristics associated with screening mammography interpretive accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008, 100:876-887.
11. Geller B.M., Aiello Bowles E., Sohng H.Y., et al. Radiologists' performance and their enjoyment of interpreting screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009, 192:361-369.
12. Miglioretti D.L., Gard C.C., Carney P.A., et al. When radiologists perform best: The learning curve in screening mammography interpretation. Radiology 2009, 253:632-640.
13. Smith-Bindman R., Chu P., Miglioretti D.L., et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005, 97:358-367.
14. Barlow W.E., Chi Chen, Carney P.A., et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004, 96:1840-1850.
15. Elmore J.G., Jackson S.L., Abraham L., et al. Variability in interpretive performance of screening mammography and radiologist characteristics associated with accuracy. Radiology 2009, 253:641-651.
16. Accessed October 27, 2010. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm.
17. Perry N.M. Breast cancer screening-the European experience. Int J Fertility Women's Med 2004, 49:228-230.
18. Adcock K.A. Initiative to improve mammogram interpretation. Permanente J 2004, 8. Available at: http://xnet.kp.org/permanentejournal/spring04/vohswin.html.
19. American College of Radiology, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS), Copyright 2004.
20. Carney P.A., Geller B.M., Moffett H., et al. Current medico-legal and confidentiality issues in large multi-center research programs. Am J Epidemiol 2000, 152:371-378.
21. Carney PA, Geller BM, Abraham L, et al. Feasibility and satisfaction associated with using a tailored web-based intervention for recalibrating radiologists thresholds for conducting additional work-up. In press.
22. Berelson B.R. Content analysis. Handbook of social psychology 1954, Addison-Wellesley, Reading, MA. G. Lindsey (Ed.).
23. Carney P.A., Sickles E., Monsees B., et al. Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography. Radiology 2010, 255:354-361.
24. Rosenberg R.D., Yankaskas B.C., Abraham L., et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 2006, 241:55-66.
25. Wakefield J., Herbert C.P., Maclure M., et al. Commitment to change statements can predict actual change in practice. J Conti Educ Health Prof 2003, 23:81-92.
26. Smith-Bindman R., Chu P.W., Miglioretti D.L., et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 2003, 290:2129-2137.
27. Hofvind S., Vacek P.M., Skelly J., et al. Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008, 100:1082-1091.
28. Carney PA, Cook AJ, Miglioretti DL, et al. Radiologists' Use of Clinical History and its Impact on Interpretive Performance (In Review).