Literature DB >> 22451568

Association between time spent interpreting, level of confidence, and accuracy of screening mammography.

Patricia A Carney1, T Andrew Bogart, Berta M Geller, Sebastian Haneuse, Karla Kerlikowske, Diana S M Buist, Robert Smith, Robert Rosenberg, Bonnie C Yankaskas, Tracy Onega, Diana L Miglioretti.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the effect of time spent viewing images and level of confidence on a screening mammography test set on interpretive performance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologists from six mammography registries participated in this study and were randomized to interpret one of four test sets and complete 12 survey questions. Each test set had 109 cases of digitized four-view screening screen-film mammograms with prior comparison screening views. Viewing time for each case was defined as the cumulative time spent viewing all mammographic images before recording which visible feature, if any, was the "most significant finding." Log-linear regression fit via the generalized estimating equation was used to test the effect of viewing time and level of confidence in the interpretation on test set sensitivity and false-positive rate.
RESULTS: One hundred nineteen radiologists completed a test set and contributed data on 11,484 interpretations. The radiologists spent more time viewing cases that had significant findings or cases for which they had less confidence in their interpretation. Each additional minute of viewing time increased the probability of a true-positive interpretation among cancer cases by 1.12 (95% CI, 1.06-1.19; p < 0.001) regardless of confidence in the assessment. Among the radiologists who were very confident in their assessment, each additional minute of viewing time increased the adjusted risk of a false-positive interpretation among noncancer cases by 1.42 (95% CI, 1.21-1.68), and this viewing-time effect diminished with decreasing confidence.
CONCLUSION: Longer interpretation times and higher levels of confidence in an interpretation are both associated with higher sensitivity and false-positive rates in mammography screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22451568      PMCID: PMC3654687          DOI: 10.2214/AJR.11.6988

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


  23 in total

1.  An analysis of perceptual errors in reading mammograms using quasi-local spatial frequency spectra.

Authors:  C Mello-Thoms; S M Dunn; C F Nodine; H L Kundel
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes.

Authors:  Louise-Anne McNutt; Chuntao Wu; Xiaonan Xue; Jean Paul Hafner
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2003-05-15       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Time course of perception and decision making during mammographic interpretation.

Authors:  Calvin F Nodine; Claudia Mello-Thoms; Harold L Kundel; Susan P Weinstein
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.959

4.  The perception of breast cancer: what differentiates missed from reported cancers in mammography?

Authors:  Claudia Mello-Thoms; Stanley Dunn; Calvin F Nodine; Harold L Kundel; Susan P Weinstein
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 3.173

5.  Marginal modeling of multilevel binary data with time-varying covariates.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Patrick J Heagerty
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 5.899

6.  Interpretation time of computer-aided detection at screening mammography.

Authors:  Philip M Tchou; Tamara Miner Haygood; E Neely Atkinson; Tanya W Stephens; Paul L Davis; Elsa M Arribas; William R Geiser; Gary J Whitman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-08-02       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Digital and screen-film mammography: comparison of image acquisition and interpretation times.

Authors:  Eric A Berns; R Edward Hendrick; Mariana Solari; Lora Barke; Denise Reddy; Judith Wolfman; Lewis Segal; Patricia DeLeon; Stefanie Benjamin; Laura Willis
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Improving mammographic decision accuracy by incorporating observer ratings with interpretation time.

Authors:  R S Saunders; E Samei
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 3.039

9.  Current medicolegal and confidentiality issues in large, multicenter research programs.

Authors:  P A Carney; B M Geller; H Moffett; M Ganger; M Sewell; W E Barlow; N Stalnaker; S H Taplin; C Sisk; V L Ernster; H A Wilkie; B Yankaskas; S P Poplack; N Urban; M M West; R D Rosenberg; S Michael; T D Mercurio; R Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2000-08-15       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United kingdom.

Authors:  Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Philip W Chu; Diana L Miglioretti; Edward A Sickles; Roger Blanks; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Janet K Bobo; Nancy C Lee; Matthew G Wallis; Julietta Patnick; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-10-22       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  12 in total

1.  Experiences with a self-test for Dutch breast screening radiologists: lessons learnt.

Authors:  J M H Timmers; A L M Verbeek; R M Pijnappel; M J M Broeders; G J den Heeten
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-09-22       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  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

3.  Feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomized clinical trial designed to improve interpretation of screening mammography.

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

4.  Is confidence of mammographic assessment a good predictor of accuracy?

Authors:  Berta M Geller; Andy Bogart; Patricia A Carney; Joann G Elmore; Barbara S Monsees; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  Boosting medical diagnostics by pooling independent judgments.

Authors:  Ralf H J M Kurvers; Stefan M Herzog; Ralph Hertwig; Jens Krause; Patricia A Carney; Andy Bogart; Giuseppe Argenziano; Iris Zalaudek; Max Wolf
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-07-18       Impact factor: 11.205

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.  Radiologist agreement for mammographic recall by case difficulty and finding type.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Megan Smith; Diana L Miglioretti; Patricia A Carney; Berta A Geller; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Robert D Rosenberg; Robert A Smith; Edward A Sickles; Sebastien Haneuse; Melissa L Anderson; Bonnie Yankaskas
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 5.532

8.  Establishing a gold standard for test sets: variation in interpretive agreement of expert mammographers.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Melissa L Anderson; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Berta Geller; Andy Bogart; Robert A Smith; Edward A Sickles; Barbara Monsees; Lawrence Bassett; Patricia A Carney; Karla Kerlikowske; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 3.173

9.  Pooling decisions decreases variation in response bias and accuracy.

Authors:  Ralf H J M Kurvers; Stefan M Herzog; Ralph Hertwig; Jens Krause; Max Wolf
Journal:  iScience       Date:  2021-06-17

10.  Collective intelligence meets medical decision-making: the collective outperforms the best radiologist.

Authors:  Max Wolf; Jens Krause; Patricia A Carney; Andy Bogart; Ralf H J M Kurvers
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-12       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.