Literature DB >> 10207413

Mammography in the 1990s: the United States and Canada.

O H Suleiman1, D C Spelic, J L McCrohan, G R Symonds, F Houn.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate trends in mammography quality before and after the implementation of the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) of 1992 and to compare technical data collected in the United States with corresponding data obtained from the first survey of mammography facilities conducted in 1994-1995 in Canada.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from MQSA inspections conducted in 1995-1997 were analyzed and compared with survey data on U.S. mammography facilities acquired before the MQSA. Technical indicators of mammography quality such as radiation dose phantom image score, film processing, and darkroom fog were analyzed.
RESULTS: In the United States, phantom image scores, along with other technical measures of performance such as film processing, darkroom fog, and x-ray beam quality, have improved continuously since 1985. The U.S. mean glandular dose has increased to 1.6 mGy compared with the Canadian dose of 1.1 mGy. The mean total phantom image score with artifact subtraction was 11.1 in Canada in 1994-1995 and 11.8 in the U.S. in 1997.
CONCLUSION: Mammography quality is better today than it has been at any other time in the United States. With the exception of radiation dose. Canadian technical measures of performance are comparable to measures before MQSA in the United States.

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10207413     DOI: 10.1148/radiology.210.2.r99fe45345

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  7 in total

1.  Pediatric digital radiography summit overview: state of confusion.

Authors:  Steven Don
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2011-05

Review 2.  Breast cancer screening: an evidence-based update.

Authors:  Mackenzie S Fuller; Christoph I Lee; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 5.456

3.  United States radiological health activities: inspection results of mammography facilities.

Authors:  Dc Spelic; Rv Kaczmarek; M Hilohi; S Belella
Journal:  Biomed Imaging Interv J       Date:  2007-04-01

4.  Patient dose in full-field digital mammography: an Italian survey.

Authors:  Gisella Gennaro; Paola Baldelli; Angelo Taibi; Cosimo Di Maggio; Mauro Gambaccini
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2003-08-12       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Reconstruction of absorbed doses to fibroglandular tissue of the breast of women undergoing mammography (1960 to the present).

Authors:  Isabelle Thierry-Chef; Steven L Simon; Robert M Weinstock; Deukwoo Kwon; Martha S Linet
Journal:  Radiat Res       Date:  2011-10-12       Impact factor: 2.841

6.  Fracture risk assessment after BMD examination: whose job is it, anyway?

Authors:  S Allin; S Munce; L Carlin; D Butt; K Tu; G Hawker; J Sale; S Jaglal
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2014-03-08       Impact factor: 4.507

7.  Clinical image evaluation of film mammograms in Korea: comparison with the ACR standard.

Authors:  Yeon Joo Gwak; Hye Jung Kim; Jin Young Kwak; Eun Ju Son; Kyung Hee Ko; Jin Hwa Lee; Hyo Soon Lim; You Jin Lee; Ji Won Park; Kyung Min Shin; Yun-Jin Jang
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 3.500

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.