Alai Tan1, Daniel H Freeman, James S Goodwin, Jean L Freeman. 1. Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, Office of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Texas Medical Branch, 301 University Boulevard, Galveston, Texas 77555-1148, USA. altan@utmb.edu
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.
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.
Authors: Jacqueline R Halladay; Bonnie C Yankaskas; J Michael Bowling; Camille Alexander Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.959
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
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
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: 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
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
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