Peer reviewing of screening mammography in Taiwan: Its reliability and the improvement

Chinese Medical Journal

Volumn 126, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 68-71

  Pan, Huay Ben ^a,b   Hsu, Giu Cheng ^c   Yang, Tsung Lung ^a,b   Huang, Jer Shyung ^a,b   Chou, Chen Pin ^a,b   Liang, Huei Lung ^a,b   Lee, San Kan ^d   Chou, Yi Hong ^e   Li, Hung Ju ^e   Wong, Kam Fai ^e  

^a KAOHSIUNG VETERANS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL YANG MING UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^c TRI SERVICE GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

^d TAICHUNG VETERANS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (Taiwan)

^e NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF KAOHSIUNG   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Breast cancer; Mammography; Peer reviewing; Screening

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; DEVICE RECALL; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MAMMOGRAPHY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PEER REVIEW; PERFORMANCE; PREDICTIVE VALUE; RADIOLOGIST; REVIEW; TAIWAN;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; PEER REVIEW; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TAIWAN;

EID: 84874389671     PISSN: 03666999     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.20121516     Document Type: Review

References (13)

1. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography: a meta-analysis. JAMA 1995; 273: 149-154.
2. Gemignani ML. Breast cancer screening: why, when, and how many? Clin Obstet Gynecol 2011; 54: 125-132.
3. Duijm LE, Groenewoud JH, Jansen FH, Fracheboud J, van Beek M, de Koning HJ. Mammography screening in the Netherlands: delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer after breast cancer screening. Brit J Cancer 2004; 91: 1795-1799.
4. Feldman J, Smith RA, Giusti R, DeBuono B, Fulton JP, Scott HD. Peer review of mammography interpretations in a breast cancer screening program. AJPH 1995; 85: 837-839.
5. Chubak J, Boudreau DM, Fishman PA, Elmore JG. Cost of breast-related care in the year following false positive screening mammogra. msMed Care 2010; 48: 815-820.
6. Linver MN, Osuch JR, Brenner RJ, Smith RA. The mammography audit: a primer for the mammography quality standards act (MQSA). AJR 1995; 165: 19-25.
7. Dee KE, Sickles EA. Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations: comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently. AJR 2001; 176: 729-733.
8. Shaw CM, Flanagan FL, Fenlon HM, McNicholas MM. Consensus review of discordant findings maximizes cancer detection rate in double-reader screening mammography: Irish National Breast Screening Program experience. Radiology 2009; 250: 354-362.
9. Pan HB, Yang TL, Hsu GC, Chiang CL, Huang JS, Chou CP, et al. Can missed breast cancer be recognized by regular peer auditing on screening mammography? JCMA 2012; 75: 464-497.
10. Roselli del Turco M, Hendriks JH, Perry NM. Radiological guidelines. In: Perry NM, Broeder M, de Wolf CJM, Tornberg S, eds. European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2001: 366.
11. Quality determinants of mammography. Quality Determinants of Mammography Guidelines Panel. Rockville, Md: United States Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1994: 78-86.
12. Feig SA, D'Orsi CJ, Hendrick RE, Jackson VP, Kopans DB, Monsees B, et al. American College of Radiology guidelines for breast cancer screening. AJR 1998; 171: 29-33.
13. Perry NM, Kirkpatrick A. European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening. In: de Wolf CJM, Perry NM, eds. European guidelines for quality assurance in mammography screening. 2nd ed. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 1996: I1-I15.