RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to develop and evaluate software to support a computer assisted mammography feedback program (CAMFP) to be used for continuing medical education (CME). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five radiologists from our region signed consent to participate in an institutional review board-approved film-reading study. The radiologists primarily assessed digitized mammograms and received feedback in five film interpretation sessions. A bivariate analysis was used to evaluate the joint effects of the training on sensitivity and specificity, and the effects of image quality on reading performance were explored. RESULTS: Interpretation was influenced by the CAMFP intervention: Sensitivity increased (Delta sensitivity = 0.086, P < .001) and specificity decreased (Delta specificity = -0.057, P = .04). Variability in interpretation among radiologists also decreased after the training sessions (P = .035). CONCLUSION: The CAMFP intervention improved sensitivity and decreased variability among radiologist's interpretations. Although this improvement was partially offset by decreased specificity, the program is potentially useful as a component of continuing medical education of radiologists. Dissemination via the web may be possible using digital mammography.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Our goal was to develop and evaluate software to support a computer assisted mammography feedback program (CAMFP) to be used for continuing medical education (CME). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-five radiologists from our region signed consent to participate in an institutional review board-approved film-reading study. The radiologists primarily assessed digitized mammograms and received feedback in five film interpretation sessions. A bivariate analysis was used to evaluate the joint effects of the training on sensitivity and specificity, and the effects of image quality on reading performance were explored. RESULTS: Interpretation was influenced by the CAMFP intervention: Sensitivity increased (Delta sensitivity = 0.086, P < .001) and specificity decreased (Delta specificity = -0.057, P = .04). Variability in interpretation among radiologists also decreased after the training sessions (P = .035). CONCLUSION: The CAMFP intervention improved sensitivity and decreased variability among radiologist's interpretations. Although this improvement was partially offset by decreased specificity, the program is potentially useful as a component of continuing medical education of radiologists. Dissemination via the web may be possible using digital mammography.
Authors: R D Rosenberg; B C Yankaskas; W C Hunt; R Ballard-Barbash; N Urban; V L Ernster; K Kerlikowske; B Geller; P A Carney; S Taplin Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Chris Quale; Robert D Rosenberg; Gary Cutter; Berta Geller; Peter Bacchetti; Edward A Sickles; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-03-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Carl J D'Orsi; Valerie P Jackson; Lawrence W Bassett; Craig A Beam; Rebecca S Lewis; Philip E Crewson Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Debra M Ikeda; Robyn L Birdwell; Kathryn F O'Shaughnessy; R James Brenner; Edward A Sickles Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 11.105
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
Authors: Patricia A Carney; Andy Bogart; Edward A Sickles; Robert Smith; Diana S M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Diana L Miglioretti; Robert Rosenberg; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Berta M Geller Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 3.173