Diagnostic mammography: Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria

Radiology

Volumn 267, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 359-367

  Carney, Patricia A ^a   Parikh, Jay ^b   Sickles, Edward A ^c   Feig, Stephen A ^d   Monsees, Barbara ^e   Bassett, Lawrence W ^f   Smith, Robert A ^g   Rosenberg, Robert ^h   Ichikawa, Laura ⁱ   Wallace, James ^a   Tran, Khai ^j   Miglioretti, Diana L ^i,k  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SWEDISH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^e WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^g AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY   (United States)

^h Group Health Research Institute ^*

ⁱ GROUP HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^j Carol Milgard Breast Center   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MODIFIED ANGOFF CRITERION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIMULATION; TUMOR BIOPSY;

BENCHMARKING; BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 84876910333     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12121216     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. American College of Radiology. ACR practice guideline for the performance of screening and diagnostic mammography. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2011.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Radiation emitting products: Mammography Quality Standards Act. http://www.fda.gov/RadiationEmittingProducts/ Mammography-QualityStandardsActandProgram/default. htm. Accessed May 31, 2012.
3. Rosenberg RD, Yankaskas BC, Abraham LA, et al. Performance benchmarks for screening mammography. Radiology 2006;241(1):55-66.
4. Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology 2005;235(3):775-790.
5. Leung JW, Margolin FR, Dee KE, Jacobs RP, Denny SR, Schrumpf JD. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography in a community practice: are there differences between specialists and general radiologists? AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188(1):236-241.
6. Sickles EA, Wolverton DE, Dee KE. Performance parameters for screening and diagnostic mammography: specialist and general radiologists. Radiology 2002;224(3):861-869.
7. Dee KE, Sickles EA. Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations: comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;176(3):729-733.
8. Miglioretti DL, Smith-Bindman R, Abraham LA, et al. Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99(24):1854-1863.
9. Barlow WE, Lehman CD, Zheng Y, et al. Performance of diagnostic mammography for women with signs or symptoms of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94(15):1151-1159.
10. Sohlich RE, Sickles EA, Burnside ES, Dee KE. Interpreting data from audits when screening and diagnostic mammography outcomes are combined. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178(3):681-686.
11. Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Correlation of radiologist rank as a measure of skill in screening and diagnostic interpretation of mammograms. Radiology 2006;238(2):446-453.
12. Carney PA, Sickles EA, Monsees BS, et al. Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography. Radiology 2010;255(2):354-361.
13. National Cancer Institute. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. http://breastscreening .cancer.gov/. Accessed June 22, 2009.
14. Ricker KL. Setting cut scores: critical review of Angoff and Modified-Angoff methods. Centre for Research in Applied Measurement and Evaluation, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. http://www.google.com/searcȟq=angoff+method&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 &aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client =firefox-a. Accessed November 22, 2011.
15. Cope RT. A generalizability study of the Angoff method applied to setting cutoff scores of professional certification tests. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Washington, DC, April 20-24, 1987). http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/ recordDetails/detailmini .jsp?-nfpb=true&-&ERICExtSearch-Search Value-0=ED282921&ERICExtSearch-Search Type-0=no&accno=ED282921. Accessed November 22, 2011.
16. Arrasmith DG, Hambleton RK. Steps for setting standards with the Angoff method. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?-nfpb= true&-& ERICExtSearch-SearchValue-0=ED299326& ERICExtSearch- SearchType-0=no&accno =ED299326. Accessed November 22, 2011.
17. Boursicot K, Roberts T. Setting standards in a professional higher education course: defining the concept of the minimally competent student in performance based assessment at the level of graduation from medical school. Higher Educ Q 2006;60(1): 74-90.
18. Talente G, Haist SA, Wilson JF. A model for setting performance standards for standardized patient examinations. Eval Health Prof 2003;26(4):427-446.
19. George S, Haque MS, Oyebode F. Standard setting: comparison of two methods. BMC Med Educ 2006;6:46.
20. American College of Radiology. BI-RADS (Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System) atlas. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/BIRADS. Accessed October 1, 2012.
21. R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2008.
22. Lemmers O, Broeders M, Verbeek A, Heeten G, Holland R, Borm GF. League tables of breast cancer screening units: worst-case and best-case scenario ratings helped in exposing real differences between performance ratings. J Med Screen 2009;16(2):67-72.
23. Miglioretti DL, Gard CC, Carney PA, et al. When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation. Radiology 2009;253(3):632-640.
24. Buist DS, Anderson ML, Haneuse SJ, et al. Influence of annual interpretive volume on screening mammography performance in the United States. Radiology 2011;259(1):72-84.
25. Geller BM, Barlow WE, Ballard-Barbash R, et al. Use of the American College of Radiology BI-RADS to report on the mammographic evaluation of women with signs and symptoms of breast disease. Radiology 2002;222(2):536-542.