Mammography interpretation: factors influencing the assessment of accuracy and the perception of abnormality

Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences

Volumn 52, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 23-25

  Reed, Warren ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952302180     PISSN: 20513895     EISSN: 20513909     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/j.2051-3909.2005.tb00033.x     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Landis SH, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer Statistics 1998. CA Cancer J Clin 1998; 48: 6–29.
2. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 209–213.
3. Elmore JG, Wells CK, Lee CH, Howard DH, Feistein AR. Variability in radiologists' interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med 1994; 331: 1493–1499
4. Christiansen CL, Morris CN. Improving the statistical approach to healthcare provider profiling. Ann Int Med 1997; 127: 764–768.
5. Delong ER, Peterson ED, Delong DM, Mulbaire LH, Hackett S, Mark DB. Comparing risk adjustment methods for provider profiling. Stat Med 1997; 16: 2645–664.
6. Reis LAG, Kosary CL, Hankey BF, Miller BA, Edwards BK (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973–1995. Bethesda MD: National Cancer Institute; 1998.
7. Egglin TK, Feinstein AR. Context bias: a problem in diagnostic radiology. JAMA 1996; 276: 1752–1755.
8. Rutter CM, Taplin S. Assessing mammographers' accuracy: a comparison of clinical and test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 443–450.
9. Bird RE, Wallace TW, Yankaskas BC. Analysis of cancers missed at screening mammography. Radiology 1992; 184: 613–617.
10. Martin JE, Moskowitz M, Milbrath JR. Breast cancer missed by mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1979; 132: 737–739.
11. Kundel HL. Images, image quality and observer performance. Radiology 1979; 132: 265–271.
12. Zheng B, Gannott MA, Britton CA, Hakim CM, Hardesty LA, Chang TS et al. Soft copy mammographic readings with different computer assisted detection cuing environments: preliminary findings. Radiology 2001; 221: 633–640.
13. Carmody DP, Nodine CF, Kundel HL. An analysis of perceptual and cognitive factors in radiographic interpretation. Perception 1980; 9: 339–344.
14. Nodine CF, Kundell HL, Mello-Thoms C, Weistein SP, Orel SG, Sullivan DC et al. How experience and training influence mammography expertise. Acad Radiol 1999; 6: 575–785
15. Krupinski EA, Nodine CF, Kundel HL. Enhancing recognition of lesions in radiographic images using perceptual feedback. Opt Eng 1998; 37: 813–818.
16. Krupinski EA, Nodine CF. Gaze duration predicts the location of missed lesions in mammography. In Gale AG editor. Digital mammography. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 1994.
17. Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Krupinski EA Computer displayed eye position as a visual aid to pulmonary nodule interpretation. Invest Radiol 1990; 25: 890–896.
18. Nodine CF, Kundel HL. Using eye movements to study visual search and to improve tumor detection. Radiographics 1987; 7: 1241–1250
19. Mello-Thoms C, Dunn SM, Nodine CF, Kundel HL. An analysis of perceptual errors in reading mammograms using quasi-local spatial frequency spectra. J Digit Imaging 2001; 14: 117–123.
20. Mello-Thoms C, Dunn SM, Nodine CF, Kundel HL, Weinstein SP. The perception of breast cancer: what differentiates missed from reported cancers in mammography? Acad Radiol 2002; 9: 1004–1012.
21. Andersen E, Muir B, Walsh J, Kirkpatrick A. The efficacy of double reading mammograms in breast screening. Clin Radiol; 49: 248–251.
22. Thurfjell E, Anderslevnevall K, Taube A. Benefit of independent double reading in a population based screening program. Radiology 1994; 191: 241–244.
23. Wald NJ, Murphy P, Major P, Parkes C, Townsend J, Frost C. UKCCCR multicentre randomised controlled trial of one and two view mammography in breast cancer screening. BMJ 1995; 311: 1189–1193.
24. Rubin A. Contributions to cognitive science and educational technology to training in radiology. Invest Radiol 1989; 24: 729–732.
25. Shulman L, Elstein A. Studies of problem solving judgement and decision making. Rev Res Educ 1975; 3: 3–42.
26. Peterson C. Factors associated with success or failure in radiological interpretation: diagnostic-thinking approaches. Med Educ 1999; 33(4): 251–259.