Literature DB >> 17056875

A portrait of breast imaging specialists and of the interpretation of mammography in the United States.

Rebecca S Lewis1, Jonathan H Sunshine, Mythreyi Bhargavan.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Because of the importance of breast imaging as a radiology subspecialty and concerns about malpractice, the purpose of our study is to provide a detailed portrait of breast imaging specialists, their professional activities and practices, and information on all radiologists who interpret mammograms.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed data from the American College of Radiology's 2003 Survey of Radiologists, a large, stratified random sample survey that achieved a 63% response. Responses were weighted to make them representative of all radiologists in the United States.
RESULTS: Approximately 10% of all radiologists, or 2,700-2,800 radiologists, are breast imaging specialists, but 61% of radiologists interpret mammograms, and only approximately 30% of mammograms are interpreted by breast imaging specialists. Of radiologists who reported that breast imaging was their primary specialty, only 21% took a fellowship in the field (much lower than for other subspecialties), 59% spent > or = 50% of their clinical work time in the specialty, 82% interpret > or = 2,000 mammograms annually, and only 11% (also well below other subspecialties) report that the main subspecialty society (the Society of Breast Imaging) is one of the two most important professional organizations for them. On average, breast imaging specialists, like other radiologists, report that their workload is about as heavy as desired. Their level of enjoyment of radiology does not differ significantly from average.
CONCLUSION: Breast imaging appears not to be as strongly organized to raise awareness of and support for its problems as are other subspecialties. Although others find evidence of likely future problems, breast imaging specialists are not currently overworked or less satisfied in their profession than other radiologists, despite relatively low revenue generation and a particularly high risk of a malpractice lawsuit.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17056875     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.05.1858

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  16 in total

1.  Individualized computer-aided education in mammography based on user modeling: concept and preliminary experiments.

Authors:  Maciej A Mazurowski; Jay A Baker; Huiman X Barnhart; Georgia D Tourassi
Journal:  Med Phys       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.071

2.  Digital Breast Tomosynthesis: Radiologist Learning Curve.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Linn Abraham; Christoph I Lee; Diana S M Buist; Sally D Herschorn; Brian L Sprague; Louise M Henderson; Anna N A Tosteson; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2019-02-26       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Web-based mammography audit feedback.

Authors:  Berta M Geller; Laura Ichikawa; Diana L Miglioretti; David Eastman
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  Educational interventions to improve screening mammography interpretation: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Berta M Geller; Andy Bogart; Patricia A Carney; Edward A Sickles; Robert Smith; Barbara Monsees; Lawrence W Bassett; Diana M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Sebastien Haneuse; Deirdre Hill; Matthew G Wallis; Diana Miglioretti
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  The future of mammography: radiology residents' experiences, attitudes, and opinions.

Authors:  Shrujal S Baxi; Jacqueline G Snow; Laura Liberman; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Correlation Between Screening Mammography Interpretive Performance on a Test Set and Performance in Clinical Practice.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Laura Ichikawa; Robert A Smith; Diana S M Buist; Patricia A Carney; Berta Geller; Barbara Monsees; Tracy Onega; Robert Rosenberg; Edward A Sickles; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 3.173

7.  Analysis of malpractice claims in mammography: a complex issue.

Authors:  A Fileni; N Magnavita; L Pescarini
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2009-05-14       Impact factor: 3.469

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.  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

10.  Breast imaging fellowships in the United States: who, what, and where?

Authors:  Shrujal S Baxi; Laura Liberman; Carol Lee; Elena B Elkin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 3.959

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.