Literature DB >> 15111760

The influence of clinical information on the accuracy of diagnostic mammography.

Nehmat Houssami1, Les Irwig, Judy M Simpson, Merran McKessar, Steven Blome, Jennie Noakes.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the influence of knowledge of clinical information on the accuracy of mammography in women referred for investigation of breast symptoms.
METHODS: Subjects were sampled from all women consecutively attending a symptomatic breast clinic and aged 25-55 years. This included all 240 women shown to have breast cancer and 240 age-matched women shown not to have cancer. Mammography films were prospectively reported by two radiologists independently of each other in a blinded manner and without knowledge of any clinical information. The films were then re-read with information about the type and site of symptoms (and without knowledge of the level of suspicion of cancer on clinical examination). The accuracy of reading with and without information on symptoms was compared using sensitivity and specificity and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. The effect of age on changes in test accuracy was examined.
RESULTS: Reporting the mammogram with knowledge of clinical information (compared to without any information) significantly improved sensitivity (75.8 vs. 71.3%, P = 0.003) for one radiologist, with a non-significant reduction in specificity (85.4 vs. 87.1%, P = 0.22). For the other radiologist, it resulted in non-significant improvement in both sensitivity (75.4 vs. 73.8%, P = 0.13) and specificity (89.2 vs. 87.9%, P = 0.25). Age did not have a statistically significant effect on changes in test accuracy in our data. ROC curves for both radiologists showed that reporting mammography with knowledge of clinical information resulted in small (about 2%) but significant improvement in overall test accuracy.
CONCLUSION: Our findings support the provision of clinical information relating to patients' presentation to radiologists reporting diagnostic mammography. Copyright 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15111760     DOI: 10.1023/B:BREA.0000025416.66632.84

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  13 in total

1.  Mammographic interpretive volume and diagnostic mammogram interpretation performance in community practice.

Authors:  Sebastien Haneuse; Diana S M Buist; Diana L Miglioretti; Melissa L Anderson; Patricia A Carney; Tracy Onega; Berta M Geller; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore; Stephen H Taplin; Robert A Smith; Edward A Sickles
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2011-11-21       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Design-related bias in estimates of accuracy when comparing imaging tests: examples from breast imaging research.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Stefano Ciatto
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Does Expectation of Abnormality Affect the Search Pattern of Radiologists When Looking for Pulmonary Nodules?

Authors:  Stephen Littlefair; Patrick Brennan; Warren Reed; Claudia Mello-Thoms
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 4.056

4.  Radiologist characteristics associated with interpretive performance of diagnostic mammography.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Linn Abraham; R James Brenner; Patricia A Carney; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Diana S M Buist; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-12-11       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Variability of interpretive accuracy among diagnostic mammography facilities.

Authors:  Sara L Jackson; Stephen H Taplin; Edward A Sickles; Linn Abraham; William E Barlow; Patricia A Carney; Berta Geller; Eric A Berns; Gary R Cutter; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-05-26       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Probabilistic computer model developed from clinical data in national mammography database format to classify mammographic findings.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Burnside; Jesse Davis; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Oguzhan Alagoz; Mary J Lindstrom; Berta M Geller; Benjamin Littenberg; Katherine A Shaffer; Charles E Kahn; C David Page
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-04-14       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Decreased accuracy in interpretation of community-based screening mammography for women with multiple clinical risk factors.

Authors:  Andrea J Cook; Joann G Elmore; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Gary R Cutter; Patricia A Carney
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2009-09-09       Impact factor: 6.437

8.  Influence of predicting the diagnosis from history on the accuracy of physical examination.

Authors:  Kiyoshi Shikino; Masatomi Ikusaka; Yoshiyuki Ohira; Masahito Miyahara; Shingo Suzuki; Misa Hirukawa; Kazutaka Noda; Tomoko Tsukamoto; Takanori Uehara
Journal:  Adv Med Educ Pract       Date:  2015-02-20

9.  Developing a comprehensive database management system for organization and evaluation of mammography datasets.

Authors:  Yirong Wu; Daniel L Rubin; Ryan W Woods; Mai Elezaby; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  Cancer Inform       Date:  2014-10-16

10.  Occupational noise exposure and the prevalence of dyslipidemia in a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Kun Zhang; Feng Jiang; Haibin Luo; Fangwei Liu
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 3.295

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.