OBJECTIVE: To determine radiologists' reactions to uncertainty when interpreting mammography and the extent to which radiologist uncertainty explains variability in interpretive performance. METHODS: The authors used a mailed survey to assess demographic and clinical characteristics of radiologists and reactions to uncertainty associated with practice. Responses were linked to radiologists' actual interpretive performance data obtained from 3 regionally located mammography registries. RESULTS: More than 180 radiologists were eligible to participate, and 139 consented for a response rate of 76.8%. Radiologist gender, more years interpreting, and higher volume were associated with lower uncertainty scores. Positive predictive value, recall rates, and specificity were more affected by reactions to uncertainty than sensitivity or negative predictive value; however, none of these relationships was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Certain practice factors, such as gender and years of interpretive experience, affect uncertainty scores. Radiologists' reactions to uncertainty do not appear to affect interpretive performance.
OBJECTIVE: To determine radiologists' reactions to uncertainty when interpreting mammography and the extent to which radiologist uncertainty explains variability in interpretive performance. METHODS: The authors used a mailed survey to assess demographic and clinical characteristics of radiologists and reactions to uncertainty associated with practice. Responses were linked to radiologists' actual interpretive performance data obtained from 3 regionally located mammography registries. RESULTS: More than 180 radiologists were eligible to participate, and 139 consented for a response rate of 76.8%. Radiologist gender, more years interpreting, and higher volume were associated with lower uncertainty scores. Positive predictive value, recall rates, and specificity were more affected by reactions to uncertainty than sensitivity or negative predictive value; however, none of these relationships was statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Certain practice factors, such as gender and years of interpretive experience, affect uncertainty scores. Radiologists' reactions to uncertainty do not appear to affect interpretive performance.
Authors: William E Barlow; Chen Chi; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Carl D'Orsi; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-12-15 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Louise M Henderson; Thad Benefield; Mary W Marsh; Bruce F Schroeder; Danielle D Durham; Bonnie C Yankaskas; J Michael Bowling Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-11-27 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Edward A Sickles; Berta M Geller; Stephen A Feig; Sara Jackson; David Brown; Andrea Cook; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Diana L Miglioretti; Joann G Elmore Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: John F Dick; Thomas H Gallagher; R James Brenner; Joyce P Yi; Lisa M Reisch; Linn Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Gary R Cutter; Joann G Elmore Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Berta M Geller; Erin J A Bowles; Hee Yon Sohng; R James Brenner; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Joann G Elmore Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Joyce P Yi; Linn A Abraham; Diana L Miglioretti; Erin J Aiello; Martha S Gerrity; Lisa Reisch; Eric A Berns; Edward A Sickles; Joann G Elmore Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 5.128