Literature DB >> 16819566

Variation in false-positive rates of mammography reading among 1067 radiologists: a population-based assessment.

Alai Tan1, Daniel H Freeman, James S Goodwin, Jean L Freeman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The accuracy of mammography reading varies among radiologists. We conducted a population-based assessment on radiologist variation in false- positive rates of screening mammography and its associated radiologist characteristics.
METHODS: About 27,394 screening mammograms interpreted by 1067 radiologists were identified from a 5% non-cancer sample of Medicare claims during 1998-1999. The data were linked to the American Medical Association Masterfile to obtain radiologist characteristics. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to examine the radiologist variation in false-positive rates of screening mammography and the associated radiologist characteristics.
RESULTS: Radiologists varied substantially in the false-positive rates of screening mammography (ranging from 1.5 to 24.1%, adjusting for patient characteristics). A longer time period since graduation is associated with lower false-positive rates (odds ratio [OR] for every 10 years increase: 0.87, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 0.81-0.94) and female radiologists had higher false-positive rates than male radiologists (OR = 1.25, 95% CI, 1.05-1.49), adjusting for patient and other radiologist characteristics. The unmeasured factors contributed to about 90% of the between-radiologist variance.
CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists varied greatly in accuracy of mammography reading. Female and more recently trained radiologists had higher false-positive rates. The variation among radiologists was largely due to unmeasured factors, especially unmeasured radiologist factors. If our results are confirmed in further studies, they suggest that system-level interventions would be required to reduce variation in mammography interpretation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16819566     DOI: 10.1007/s10549-006-9252-6

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


  13 in total

1.  Computer-aided classification of breast masses: performance and interobserver variability of expert radiologists versus residents.

Authors:  Swatee Singh; Jeff Maxwell; Jay A Baker; Jennifer L Nicholas; Joseph Y Lo
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-10-22       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Positive predictive value of mammography: comparison of interpretations of screening and diagnostic images by the same radiologist and by different radiologists.

Authors:  Jacqueline R Halladay; Bonnie C Yankaskas; J Michael Bowling; Camille Alexander
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography: are they related?

Authors:  Joann G Elmore; Andrea J Cook; Andy Bogart; Patricia A Carney; Berta M Geller; Stephen H Taplin; Diana S M Buist; Tracy Onega; Christoph I Lee; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Clin Imaging       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 1.605

4.  Effect of radiologist experience on the risk of false-positive results in breast cancer screening programs.

Authors:  Raquel Zubizarreta Alberdi; Ana B Fernández Llanes; Raquel Almazán Ortega; Rubén Roman Expósito; Jose M Velarde Collado; Teresa Queiro Verdes; Carmen Natal Ramos; María Ederra Sanz; Dolores Salas Trejo; Xavier Castells Oliveres
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-06-04       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Identification of abnormal screening mammogram interpretation using Medicare claims data.

Authors:  Rebecca A Hubbard; Weiwei Zhu; Steven Balch; Tracy Onega; Joshua J Fenton
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-06-28       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Facility characteristics do not explain higher false-positive rates in diagnostic mammography at facilities serving vulnerable women.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Rod Walker; Diana L Miglioretti; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; And Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.

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

8.  When radiologists perform best: the learning curve in screening mammogram interpretation.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Charlotte C Gard; Patricia A Carney; Tracy L Onega; Diana S M Buist; Edward A Sickles; Karla Kerlikowske; Robert D Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Berta M Geller; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2009-09-29       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  An assessment of the quality of mammography care at facilities treating medically vulnerable populations.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Sebastien J-P A Haneuse; Diana L Miglioretti; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Bonnie Yankaskas; Rebecca Smith-Bindman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.