Literature DB >> 15951455

Mammographers' perception of women's breast cancer risk.

Joseph R Egger1, Gary R Cutter, Patricia A Carney, Stephen H Taplin, William E Barlow, R Edward Hendrick, Carl J D'Orsi, Jessica S Fosse, Linn Abraham, Joann G Elmore.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To understand mammographers' perception of individual women's breast cancer risk.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologists interpreting screening mammography examinations completed a mailed survey consisting of questions pertaining to demographic and clinical practice characteristics, as well as 2 vignettes describing different risk profiles of women. Respondents were asked to estimate the probability of a breast cancer diagnosis in the next 5 years for each vignette. Vignette responses were plotted against mean recall rates in actual clinical practice.
RESULTS: The survey was returned by 77% of eligible radiologists. Ninety-three percent of radiologists overestimated risk in the vignette involving a 70-year-old woman; 96% overestimated risk in the vignette involving a 41-year-old woman. Radiologists who more accurately estimated breast cancer risk were younger, worked full-time, were affiliated with an academic medical center, had fellowship training, had fewer than 10 years experience interpreting mammograms, and worked more than 40% of the time in breast imaging. However, only age was statistically significant. No association was found between radiologists' risk estimate and their recall rate.
CONCLUSION: U.S. radiologists have a heightened perception of breast cancer risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15951455      PMCID: PMC3131742          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05276857

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  18 in total

1.  The New Hampshire Mammography Network: the development and design of a population-based registry.

Authors:  P A Carney; S P Poplack; W A Wells; B Littenberg
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.959

2.  Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database.

Authors:  R Ballard-Barbash; S H Taplin; B C Yankaskas; V L Ernster; R D Rosenberg; P A Carney; W E Barlow; B M Geller; K Kerlikowske; B K Edwards; C F Lynch; N Urban; C A Chrvala; C R Key; S P Poplack; J K Worden; L G Kessler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Evaluating physicians' probabilistic judgments.

Authors:  R M Poses; R D Cebul; R M Centor
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1988 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  A bibliography of publications on observer variability.

Authors:  A R Feinstein
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1985

5.  Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals.

Authors:  D A Asch; M K Jedrziewski; N A Christakis
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  Patient, physician and presentational influences on clinical decision making for breast cancer: results from a factorial experiment.

Authors:  J B McKinlay; R B Burns; R Durante; H A Feldman; K M Freund; B S Harrow; J T Irish; L E Kasten; M A Moskowitz
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 2.431

7.  The impact of clinical history on mammographic interpretations.

Authors:  J G Elmore; C K Wells; D H Howard; A R Feinstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-01-01       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Mammography diffusion and trends in late-stage breast cancer: evaluating outcomes in a population.

Authors:  S H Taplin; M T Mandelson; C Anderman; E White; R S Thompson; D Timlin; E H Wagner
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  1997-08       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  How medical professionals evaluate expressions of probability.

Authors:  A Kong; G O Barnett; F Mosteller; C Youtz
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1986-09-18       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Relation of physicians' predicted probabilities of pneumonia to their utilities for ordering chest x-rays to detect pneumonia.

Authors:  P S Heckerling; T G Tape; R S Wigton
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1992 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  8 in total

1.  Impact of an educational intervention designed to reduce unnecessary recall during screening mammography.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Linn Abraham; Andrea Cook; Stephen A Feig; Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Berta M Geller; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Pointing the way to informed medical decision making: test characteristics of clinical breast examination.

Authors:  Mary B Barton; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-08-31       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Feasibility and satisfaction with a tailored web-based audit intervention for recalibrating radiologists' thresholds for conducting additional work-up.

Authors:  Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Linn Abraham; Stephen A Feig; David Brown; Andrea J Cook; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2010-12-30       Impact factor: 3.173

4.  Using a tailored web-based intervention to set goals to reduce unnecessary recall.

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

5.  Recommendation for short-interval follow-up examinations after a probably benign assessment: is clinical practice consistent with BI-RADS guidance?

Authors:  Erin J Aiello Bowles; Edward A Sickles; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 6.  Communication between patients and providers and informed decision making.

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Pamela S Ganschow; Berta M Geller
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2010

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.  Reactions to uncertainty and the accuracy of diagnostic mammography.

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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.