Improving Accuracy in Reporting CT Scans of Oncology Patients. Assessing the Effect of Education and Feedback Interventions on the Application of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) Criteria.

Academic Radiology

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 351-357

  Andoh, Henry ^a   McNulty, Nancy J ^a,b   Lewis, Petra J ^a,b  

^a DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b DARTMOUTH HITCHCOCK MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

CT scans; Quality; RECIST; Report

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER PATIENT; COHORT ANALYSIS; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; MEDICAL AUDIT; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESPONSE EVALUATION CRITERIA IN SOLID TUMORS; STUDENT T TEST;

GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; MEDICAL ONCOLOGY; NEOPLASMS; NEW HAMPSHIRE; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; RADIOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 84875408511     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: 18784046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2012.12.002     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Therasse P., Arbuck S.G., Eisenhauer E.A., et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors (RECIST Guidelines). J NCI 2000, 92:205-216.
2. Eisenhauer E.A., Therasse P., Bogaerts J., et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009, 45:228-247.
3. Grimshaw J., Eccles M., Thomas R., et al. Toward evidence-based quality improvement evidence (and its limitations) of the effectiveness of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies 1966-1998. J Gen Intern Med 2006, 21:S14-S20.
4. Farmer A.P., Légaré F., Turcot L., et al. Printed educational materials: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, (3):CD004398. Art. No. 10.1002/14651858.CD004398.pub2.
5. Jamtvedt G., Young J.M., Kristoffersen D.T., et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, (2):CD000259. Art. No. 10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub2.
6. Foy R., Eccles M., Jamtvedt G., et al. What do we know about how to do audit and feedback? Pitfalls in applying evidence from a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2005, 5:50.
7. Kielar A.Z., McInnes M., Quan M., et al. Introduction of QUIP (quality information program) as a semi-automated quality assessment endeavor allowing retrospective review of errors in cross-sectional abdominal imaging. Acad Radiol 2011, 18:1358-1364.
8. Carney P.A., Abraham L., Cook A., et al. Impact of an educational intervention designed to reduce unnecessary recall during screening mammography. Acad Radiol 2012, 19:1114-1120.
9. Carney P.A., Geller B.M., Sickles E.A., et al. Feasibility and satisfaction with a tailored web-based audit intervention for recalibrating radiologists' thresholds for conducting additional work-up. Acad Radiol 2011, 18:369-376.
10. Chabi M.L., Borget I., Ardiles R., et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of a computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) system in breast ultrasound according to the radiologist's experience. Acad Radiol 2012, 19:311-319.