Association between time spent interpreting, level of confidence, and accuracy of screening mammography

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 198, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 970-978

  Carney, Patricia A ^a   Bogart, T Andrew ^b   Geller, Berta M ^c   Haneuse, Sebastian ^b   Kerlikowske, Karla ^d   Buist, Diana S M ^b   Smith, Robert ^e   Rosenberg, Robert ^f   Yankaskas, Bonnie C ^g   Onega, Tracy ^h   Miglioretti, Diana L ^b,i  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

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

^h DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Breast imaging; Interpreter performance; Screening mammography

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE; MAMMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL COMPETENCE; RADIOLOGIST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPECIALIZATION; TIME; VIEW TIME;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; QUESTIONNAIRES; REGISTRIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84859121225     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.6988     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Saunders RS Jr, Baker JA, Delong DM, Johnson JP, Samei E. Does image quality matter? Impact of resolution and noise on mammographic task performance. Med Phys 2007; 34:3971-3981
2. Saunders RS, Samei E. Improving mammographic decision accuracy by incorporating observer ratings with interpretation time. Br J Radiol 2006; 79(spec no. 2):S117-S122
3. Nodine CF, Mello-Thoms C, Kundel HL, Weinstein SP. Time course of perception and decision making during mammographic interpretation. AJR 2002; 179:917-923
4. Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Krupinski EA, Mello-Thoms C. Using gaze-tracking data and mixture distribution analysis to support a holistic model for the detection of cancers on mammograms. Acad Radiol 2008; 15:881-886
5. Tchou PM, Haygood TM, Atkinson EN, et al. Interpretation time of computer-aided detection at screening mammography. Radiology 2010; 257: 40-46
6. Haygood TM, Wang J, Atkinson EN, et al. Timed efficiency of interpretation of digital and film-screen screening mammograms. AJR 2009; 192: 216-220
7. 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
8. Ishiyama M, Tsunoda-Shimizu H, Kikuchi M, Saida Y, Hiramatsu S. Comparison of reading time between screen-film mammography and soft-copied, full-field digital mammography. Breast Cancer 2009; 16:58-61
9. Carney PA, Geller BM, Moffett H, et al. Current medico-legal and confidentiality issues in large multi-center research programs. Am J Epidemiol 2000; 152:371-378
10. Vidar Systems Corporation Website. Medical film digitizers. www.vidar.com/film/diagnosticproadvantage. html. Accessed December 24, 2011
11. Poplack SP, Tosteson AN, Grove M, Wells WA, Carney PA. The practice of mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire mammography network. Radiology 2000; 217:832-840
12. D'Orsi CJ, Mendelson, EB, Ikeda DM, et al. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: ACR BI-RADS-breast imaging atlas. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003
13. Miglioretti DL, Heagerty PJ. Marginal modeling of multi-level binary data with time-varying covariates. Biostatistics 2004; 5:381-398
14. Miglioretti DL, Heagerty PJ. Marginal modeling of non-nested multilevel data using standard software. Am J Epidemiol 2007; 165:453-463
15. McNutt LA, Wu C, Xue X, Hafner JP. Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am J Epidemiol 2003; 157:940-943
16. R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2009
17. Halekoh U, Højsgaard S, Yan J. The R Package geepack for generalized estimating equations. Journal of Statistical Software 2006; 15:1-11; www.jstatsoft.org/v15/i02/paper
18. Straus SE, Tetroe J, Graham I. Defining knowledge translation. CMAJ 2009; 181:3-4
19. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA 2003; 290:2129-2137
20. Hofvind S, Geller BM, Vacek PM, Thresen S, Skaane P. Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Eur J Epidemiol 2007; 22:447-455
21. Kundel HL, Nodine CF, Conant EF, Weinstein SP. Holistic component of image perception in mammogram interpretation: gaze-tracking study. Radiology 2007; 242:396-402
22. Mello-Thoms C, Dunn S, 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
23. 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
24. Castella C, Eckstein MP, Abbey CK, et al. Mass detection on mammograms: influence of signal shape uncertainty on human and model observers. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 2009; 26:425-436
25. Naughton C, Feely J, Bennett K. A RCT evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of academic detailing versus postal prescribing feedback in changing GP antibiotic prescribing. J Eval Clin Pract 2009; 15:807-812
26. Baum S, Harder S. Appropriate dosing in patients with impaired renal function on medical wards before and after an educational intervention. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010; 48:29-35
27. Frich JC, Høye S, Lindbaek M, Straand J. General practitioners and tutors' experiences with peer group academic detailing: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract 2010; 11:12
28. Psychology Today Website. Borigini M. The Hawthorne effect and the overestimation of treatment effectiveness. www.psychologytoday.com/ blog/overcoming-pain/201011/the-hawthorne-effect-and-the-overestimation- treatment-effectiveness. Published November 26, 2010. Accessed December 24, 2011
29. American College of Radiology Website. ACR technical standard for electronic practice of medical imaging. Resolution 13. www.acr.org/ secondarymainmenucategories/quality-safety/guidelines/med-phys/ electronic-practice.aspx. Published 2007. Amended 2009. Accessed December 24, 2011