Literature DB >> 9611702

Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologists' experience?

J G Elmore1, C K Wells, D H Howard.   

Abstract

This study was designed to determine if radiologists' experience in mammography is associated with their performance in correctly interpreting mammograms. Study mammograms (n = 150) were chosen by stratified random sampling from those interpreted as normal, abnormal-benign or abnormal-suspicious for cancer, with oversampling of cancer cases. Ten radiologists who had varying amounts of experience were asked to read the mammograms. Associations between the levels of the radiologists' experience and their accuracy in reading mammograms were assessed. Significant associations (p < 0.05) were found between the frequency of immediate workup recommendations in cancer patients and obtaining feedback, total lifetime mammograms read, number of mammography continuing medical education (CME) credits, and practice type. Radiologists with more experience also noted smaller cancer lesions. However, these experience variables were also associated with increased workup recommendations in the noncancer patients (p < 0.10). In multivariable analysis, obtaining regular feedback and the total lifetime number of mammograms read were independently associate with the number of times immediate workup was recommended in the cancer cases. The most experienced radiologist had the highest sensitivity in diagnosing breast cancer. Further studies are needed to assess whether the current requirements of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for radiologists who read mammograms ensure acceptable levels of accuracy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9611702     DOI: 10.1089/jwh.1998.7.443

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Womens Health        ISSN: 1059-7115            Impact factor:   2.681


  22 in total

1.  Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Chen Chi; Patricia A Carney; Stephen H Taplin; Carl D'Orsi; Gary Cutter; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-12-15       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Computer-assisted mammography feedback program (CAMFP) an electronic tool for continuing medical education.

Authors:  Nicole Urban; Gary M Longton; Andrea D Crowe; Mariann J Drucker; Constance D Lehman; Susan Peacock; Kimberly A Lowe; Steve B Zeliadt; Marcia A Gaul
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 3.173

3.  Number of mammography cases read per year is a strong predictor of sensitivity.

Authors:  Wasfi I Suleiman; Sarah J Lewis; Dianne Georgian-Smith; Michael G Evanoff; Mark F McEntee
Journal:  J Med Imaging (Bellingham)       Date:  2014-05-07

4.  Disparities in screening mammography services by race/ethnicity and health insurance.

Authors:  Garth H Rauscher; Kristi L Allgood; Steve Whitman; Emily Conant
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2011-09-23       Impact factor: 2.681

5.  Factors associated with breast screening radiologists' annual mammogram reading volume in Italy.

Authors:  Doralba Morrone; Livia Giordano; Franca Artuso; Daniela Bernardi; Chiara Fedato; Alfonso Frigerio; Daniela Giorgi; Carlo Naldoni; Gianni Saguatti; Daniela Severi; Mario Taffurelli; Daniela Terribile; Leonardo Ventura; Lauro Bucchi
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 3.469

6.  Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Isabelle Théberge; Nicole Hébert-Croteau; André Langlois; Diane Major; Jacques Brisson
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2005-01-18       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  The influence of mammographic technologists on radiologists' ability to interpret screening mammograms in community practice.

Authors:  Louise M Henderson; Thad Benefield; Mary W Marsh; Bruce F Schroeder; Danielle D Durham; Bonnie C Yankaskas; J Michael Bowling
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 3.173

8.  Characterizing the Mammography Technologist Workforce in North Carolina.

Authors:  Louise M Henderson; Mary W Marsh; Thad Benefield; Elizabeth Pearsall; Danielle Durham; Bruce F Schroeder; J Michael Bowling; Cheryl A Viglione; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 5.532

9.  False positive mammograms and detection controlled estimation.

Authors:  Andrew N Kleit; James F Ruiz
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  The "laboratory" effect: comparing radiologists' performance and variability during prospective clinical and laboratory mammography interpretations.

Authors:  David Gur; Andriy I Bandos; Cathy S Cohen; Christiane M Hakim; Lara A Hardesty; Marie A Ganott; Ronald L Perrin; William R Poller; Ratan Shah; Jules H Sumkin; Luisa P Wallace; Howard E Rockette
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 11.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.