Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography

Academic Radiology

Volumn 20, Issue 11, 2013, Pages 1389-1398

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

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CENTER FOR HEALTH STUDIES   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f DARTMOUTH MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

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

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Interpretive accuracy; Physician education; Screening mammography

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER SCREENING; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTINUING EDUCATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; LEARNING STYLE; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOLOGIST; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); UNITED STATES;

INTERPRETIVE ACCURACY; PHYSICIAN EDUCATION; SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, CONTINUING; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MAMMOGRAPHY; MASS SCREENING; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; RADIOLOGY;

EID: 84885345719     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: 18784046     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2013.08.017     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Davis D., O'Brien M.T., Freemantle N., et al. Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes?. JAMA 1999, 282(9):867-874.
2. Mammography facilities requirement for accrediting bodies, and quality standards and certifying requirements: interim rules (21 CFR 900). Fed Reg 1993, 58:57558-57572. Mammography quality standards act of 1992, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office1992. Report No.: 102-539.
3. Mazmanian P.E., Davis D.A. Continuing medical education and the physician as a learner: guide to the evidence. JAMA 2002, 288(9):1057-1060.
4. Davis D.A., Taylor-Vaisey A. Translating guidelines into practice: a systematic review of theoretic concepts, practical experience and research evidence in the adoption of clinical practice guidelines. CMAJ 1997, 157:408-416.
5. Davis D.A., Thomson M.A., Oxman A.D., et al. Changing physician performance: a systematic review of the effect of continuing medical education strategies. JAMA 1995, 274:700-705.
6. Oxman A.D., Thomson M.A., Davis D.A., et al. No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. CMAJ 1995, 153:1423-1431.
7. Carney P.A., Sickles E.A., Monsees B.S., et al. Identifying minimally acceptable interpretive performance criteria for screening mammography. Radiology 2010, 255(2):354-361.
8. Warren Burhenne L.J., Smith R.A., Tabar L., et al. Mammographic screening: international perspective. Semin Roentgenol 2001, 36(3):187-194.
9. Davis D.A., Lindsay E.A., Mazmanian P.E. The effectiveness of CME interventions. The physician as learner: linking research to practice 1994, 245-280. American Medical Association, Chicago, IL. D.A. Davis, R.D. Fox (Eds.).
10. Davis D., Thomson M.A., Oxman A.D., et al. Evidence for the effectiveness of CME: a review of 50 randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1992, 268:1111-1117.
11. O'Brien M.A., Freemantle N., Oxman A.D., et al. Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes 2002, Cochrane Library, Update Software, Oxford, England, issue 1.
12. Mazmanian P.E., Davis D.A. Continuing medical education and the physician as a learner: Guide to the evidence. JAMA 2002, 288(9):1057-1060.
13. Perry N.M. Breast cancer screening-the European experience. Int J Fertil Women's Med 2004, 49(5):228-230.
14. Adcock K.A. Initiative to improve mammogram interpretation. Permanente J Spring 2004, 8(2):12-18.
15. Linver M.N., Paster S., Rosenberg R.D., et al. Improvements in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated courses: 2-year medical audit of 38,633 cases. Radiology 1992, 184(1):39-43.
16. Berg W.A., D'Orsi C.J., Jackson V.P., et al. Does training in breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) improve biopsy recommendations of feature analysis agreement with experienced breast imagers at mammography?. Radiology 2002, 224:871-880.
17. Carney P.A., Geller B., Bogart A., et al. Association between time spent, confidence and accuracy of screening mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012, 198(4):970-978.
18. Geller BM, Bogart A, Carney PA, etal. Educational interventions to improve screening mammography interpretation: a randomized, controlled trial. AJR. In press.
19. Radiology ACR. Mammography case review. 2012; Available from:. http://www.acr.org/mcr.
20. Sickles E. The American College of Radiology's Mammography Interpretive Skills Assessment (MISA) examination. Semin Breast Dis 2003, 6(3):133-139.
21. Ballard-Barbash R., Taplin S.H., Yankaskas B.C., et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997, 169:1001-1008.
22. Carney P.A., Geller B.M., Moffett H., et al. Current medico-legal and confidentiality issues in large multi-center research programs. Am J Epidemiol 2000, 152(4):371-378.
23. Elmore J.G., Jackson S.L., Abraham L., et al. Variability in interpretive performance of screening mammography and radiologist characteristics associated with accuracy. Radiology 2009, 253:641-651.
24. Buist D.S.M., Anderson M.L., Haneuse S.J.P.A., et al. The influence of volume on interpretive performance of screening mammography in the US. Radiology 2011, 259:72-84.
25. Kruskal W.H., Wallis W.A. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. JAm Stat Assoc 1952, 47:583-621.
26. Carney P.A., Geller B.M., Sickles E.A., et al. Feasibility and satisfaction associated with using a tailored Web-based intervention for recalibrating radiologists thresholds for conducting additional work-up. Acad Radiol 2011, 18(3):369-376.
27. Urban N., Longton G.M., Crowe A.D., et al. Computer-Assisted Mammography Feedback Program (CAMFP) an electronic tool for continuing medical education. Acad Radiol 2007, 14(9):1036-1042.
28. Lewis R.S., Bhargavan M., Sunshine J.H. Women radiologists in the United States: results from the American College of Radiology's 2003 survey. Radiology 2007, 242:802-810.
29. Patefield W.M. Algorithm AS159. An efficient method of generating r x c tables with given row and column totals. Appl Stat 1981, 30:91-97.