Literature DB >> 17411883

The ACR's Mammography Accreditation Program: ten years of experience since MQSA.

Judy M Destouet1, Lawrence W Bassett, Martin J Yaffe, Priscilla F Butler, Pamela A Wilcox.   

Abstract

The ACR's Mammography Accreditation Program has been helping facilities improve the quality of mammography through peer review and professional feedback since 1987. Initially conceived as a voluntary program, accreditation became mandatory when the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) of 1992 required all U.S. mammography facilities to become accredited and certified by October 1, 1994. Currently, the ACR is the largest of four accrediting bodies approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, accrediting 12,729 units at 8325 facilities by October 1, 2004. Between 1987 and 1991, 70% of the mammography units applying for accreditation with the ACR passed on their first attempts. In 2003, 88.3% of the units passed on their first attempts, indicating a marked improvement in the quality of mammography in the United States since MQSA went into effect 10 years ago.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 17411883     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2004.12.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol        ISSN: 1546-1440            Impact factor:   5.532


  12 in total

1.  The federal government's oversight of CT safety: regulatory possibilities.

Authors:  H Benjamin Harvey; Pari V Pandharipande
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Pediatric digital radiography summit overview: state of confusion.

Authors:  Steven Don
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2011-05

3.  Toward a uniform policy for handling incidental findings in neuroimaging research.

Authors:  D A Brown; A N Hasso
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2008-08-07       Impact factor: 3.825

4.  Breast MRI in community practice: equipment and imaging techniques at facilities in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Authors:  Wendy B DeMartini; Laura Ichikawa; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Diana Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Berta Geller; Tracy Onega; Robert D Rosenberg; Constance D Lehman
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 5.532

Review 5.  A review of mammographic positioning image quality criteria for the craniocaudal projection.

Authors:  Rhonda-Joy I Sweeney; Sarah J Lewis; Peter Hogg; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-12-05       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 6.  Review of radiation dose estimates in digital breast tomosynthesis relative to those in two-view full-field digital mammography.

Authors:  T M Svahn; N Houssami; I Sechopoulos; S Mattsson
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2014-12-29       Impact factor: 4.380

7.  Mammogram image quality as a potential contributor to disparities in breast cancer stage at diagnosis: an observational study.

Authors:  Garth H Rauscher; Emily F Conant; Jenna A Khan; Michael L Berbaum
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2013-04-26       Impact factor: 4.430

8.  Evolution of mammographic image quality in the state of Rio de Janeiro.

Authors:  Vanessa Cristina Felippe Lopes Villar; Marismary Horsth De Seta; Carla Lourenço Tavares de Andrade; Elizabete Vianna Delamarque; Ana Cecília Pedrosa de Azevedo
Journal:  Radiol Bras       Date:  2015 Mar-Apr

9.  Determinants of the number of mammography units in 31 countries with significant mammography screening.

Authors:  P Autier; D Ait Ouakrim; D A Ouakrim
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2008-09-09       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Clinical image evaluation of film mammograms in Korea: comparison with the ACR standard.

Authors:  Yeon Joo Gwak; Hye Jung Kim; Jin Young Kwak; Eun Ju Son; Kyung Hee Ko; Jin Hwa Lee; Hyo Soon Lim; You Jin Lee; Ji Won Park; Kyung Min Shin; Yun-Jin Jang
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 3.500

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.