Literature DB >> 18431574

Clinical impact of the use of additional ultrasonography in diagnostic breast imaging.

Luc D B Vercauteren1, Alphons G H Kessels, Trudy van der Weijden, Dick Koster, Johan L Severens, Jos M A van Engelshoven, Karin Flobbe.   

Abstract

The degree of adherence with evidence-based guidelines for the use of breast ultrasonography was determined in clinical practice of radiologists in six hospitals. Additional ultrasonography was performed in 2,272 (53%) of all 4,257 patients referred for mammography. High adherence rates (mean: 95%) were observed for guidelines recommending ultrasonography in patients referred for palpable breast masses and abnormal screening and diagnostic mammograms. Lower adherence rates (mean: 81%, Pearson correlation coefficient= -0.57; p=0.001) were found for guidelines advising against additional ultrasonography in patients referred for breast symptoms, a known benign abnormality, a family history or anxiety of breast cancer. The overuse of ultrasonography in 442 patients and underuse in 95 patients led to five additional false-positive results. It was concluded that the guidelines seem workable and feasible in clinical practice and that the current daily routine of diagnostic breast imaging corresponded to a great extent to the guidelines proposed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18431574     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-008-0983-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  20 in total

1.  Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice.

Authors:  R Grol
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography.

Authors:  H M Zonderland; E G Coerkamp; J Hermans; M J van de Vijver; A E van Voorthuisen
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  The positive predictive value of the breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) as a method of quality assessment in breast imaging in a hospital population.

Authors:  Harmine M Zonderland; Thomas L Pope; Arend J Nieborg
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2004-07-09       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance.

Authors:  Afina S Glas; Jeroen G Lijmer; Martin H Prins; Gouke J Bonsel; Patrick M M Bossuyt
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 6.437

5.  A blind review and an informed review of interval breast cancer cases in the Limburg screening programme, the Netherlands.

Authors:  J M de Rijke; L J Schouten; J L Schreutelkamp; I Jochem; A L Verbeek
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.136

6.  Critical pathways in using breast US.

Authors:  E B Mendelson; C E Tobin
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  1995-07       Impact factor: 5.333

7.  Difficulties in diagnosis of carcinoma of the breast in patients less than fifty years of age.

Authors:  D R Lannin; R P Harris; F H Swanson; M S Edwards; M S Swanson; W J Pories
Journal:  Surg Gynecol Obstet       Date:  1993-11

Review 8.  A review of guidelines on benign prostatic hyperplasia and lower urinary tract symptoms: are all guidelines the same?

Authors:  J Irani; C T Brown; J van der Meulen; M Emberton
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 5.588

9.  Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts.

Authors:  Pavel Crystal; Selwyn D Strano; Semyon Shcharynski; Michael J Koretz
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.959

10.  Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of breast imaging in the detection of cancer.

Authors:  L E Duijm; G L Guit; J O Zaat; A R Koomen; D Willebrand
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  3 in total

1.  Comparative accuracy of mammography and ultrasound in women with breast symptoms according to age and breast density.

Authors:  Emine Devolli-Disha; Suzana Manxhuka-Kërliu; Halit Ymeri; Arben Kutllovci
Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 3.363

2.  Characterization of breast lesions: comparison of digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasonography.

Authors:  Sun Ah Kim; Jung Min Chang; Nariya Cho; Ann Yi; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 3.500

3.  Screening Ultrasound in Women with Negative Mammography: Outcome Analysis.

Authors:  Ji-Young Hwang; Boo-Kyung Han; Eun Young Ko; Jung Hee Shin; Soo Yeon Hahn; Mee Young Nam
Journal:  Yonsei Med J       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 2.759

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.