Are Radiologists’ Goals for Mammography Accuracy Consistent with Published Recommendations?
Rationale and Objectives Mammography quality assurance programs have been in place for more than a decade. We studied radiologists’ self-reported performance goals for accuracy in screening mammography and compared them to published recommendations. Materials and Methods A mailed survey of radiologi...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Academic radiology 2012-03, Vol.19 (3), p.289-295 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 295 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 289 |
container_title | Academic radiology |
container_volume | 19 |
creator | Jackson, Sara L., MD, MPH Cook, Andrea J., PhD Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD Carney, Patricia A., PhD Geller, Berta M., EdD Onega, Tracy, PhD Rosenberg, Robert D., MD Brenner, R. James, MD Elmore, Joann G., MD, MPH |
description | Rationale and Objectives Mammography quality assurance programs have been in place for more than a decade. We studied radiologists’ self-reported performance goals for accuracy in screening mammography and compared them to published recommendations. Materials and Methods A mailed survey of radiologists at mammography registries in seven states within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) assessed radiologists’ performance goals for interpreting screening mammograms. Self-reported goals were compared to published American College of Radiology (ACR) recommended desirable ranges for recall rate, false-positive rate, positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), and cancer detection rate. Radiologists’ goals for interpretive accuracy within desirable range were evaluated for associations with their demographic characteristics, clinical experience, and receipt of audit reports. Results The survey response rate was 71% (257 of 364 radiologists). The percentage of radiologists reporting goals within desirable ranges was 79% for recall rate, 22% for false-positive rate, 39% for PPV2, and 61% for cancer detection rate. The range of reported goals was 0%–100% for false-positive rate and PPV2. Primary academic affiliation, receiving more hours of breast imaging continuing medical education, and receiving audit reports at least annually were associated with desirable PPV2 goals. Radiologists reporting desirable cancer detection rate goals were more likely to have interpreted mammograms for 10 or more years, and >1000 mammograms per year. Conclusion Many radiologists report goals for their accuracy when interpreting screening mammograms that fall outside of published desirable benchmarks, particularly for false-positive rate and PPV2, indicating an opportunity for education. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.013 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3274618</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S107663321100496X</els_id><sourcerecordid>920365873</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-c29b336cf6aaeaa4deaceb17ab5dbd1abc293092409df67bf0122a874f149e373</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9ksFu1DAQhiNERUvhBTig3DhlO7azTiKhotUKWqQiUAGJC7Im9mTXSxJv7aRob32Nvl6fBEdbKuDAydb4-3-P5p8kecFgxoDJk80MtccZB8ZiYQZMPEqOWFmUWQ65fBzvUMhMCsEPk6chbADYXJbiSXLIORMAZXWUfF94Si_RWNe6lQ1DuLu5Tc8ctiFtnE8_YNe5lcftepcutB496l26dH2IKPVD-tMO6_TTWLc2rMmkl6Rd11FvcLARevMsOWiiFT2_P4-Tr-_eflmeZxcfz94vFxeZnkM1ZJpXtRBSNxKREHNDqKlmBdZzUxuGdQQEVDyHyjSyqBtgnGNZ5A3LKxKFOE5O977bse7I6Niax1Ztve3Q75RDq_5-6e1ardy1ErzIJSujwat7A--uRgqD6mzQ1LbYkxuDqjgIOS8LEUm-J7V3IXhqHn5hoKZY1EZNsagplqkWY4mil3_29yD5nUMEXu8BilO6tuRV0JZ6TcZ60oMyzv7f__QfuW5tbzW2P2hHYeNG38f5K6YCV6A-T4sx7QVjAHklv4lfIna3Uw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>920365873</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Are Radiologists’ Goals for Mammography Accuracy Consistent with Published Recommendations?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Jackson, Sara L., MD, MPH ; Cook, Andrea J., PhD ; Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD ; Carney, Patricia A., PhD ; Geller, Berta M., EdD ; Onega, Tracy, PhD ; Rosenberg, Robert D., MD ; Brenner, R. James, MD ; Elmore, Joann G., MD, MPH</creator><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Sara L., MD, MPH ; Cook, Andrea J., PhD ; Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD ; Carney, Patricia A., PhD ; Geller, Berta M., EdD ; Onega, Tracy, PhD ; Rosenberg, Robert D., MD ; Brenner, R. James, MD ; Elmore, Joann G., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><description>Rationale and Objectives Mammography quality assurance programs have been in place for more than a decade. We studied radiologists’ self-reported performance goals for accuracy in screening mammography and compared them to published recommendations. Materials and Methods A mailed survey of radiologists at mammography registries in seven states within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) assessed radiologists’ performance goals for interpreting screening mammograms. Self-reported goals were compared to published American College of Radiology (ACR) recommended desirable ranges for recall rate, false-positive rate, positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), and cancer detection rate. Radiologists’ goals for interpretive accuracy within desirable range were evaluated for associations with their demographic characteristics, clinical experience, and receipt of audit reports. Results The survey response rate was 71% (257 of 364 radiologists). The percentage of radiologists reporting goals within desirable ranges was 79% for recall rate, 22% for false-positive rate, 39% for PPV2, and 61% for cancer detection rate. The range of reported goals was 0%–100% for false-positive rate and PPV2. Primary academic affiliation, receiving more hours of breast imaging continuing medical education, and receiving audit reports at least annually were associated with desirable PPV2 goals. Radiologists reporting desirable cancer detection rate goals were more likely to have interpreted mammograms for 10 or more years, and >1000 mammograms per year. Conclusion Many radiologists report goals for their accuracy when interpreting screening mammograms that fall outside of published desirable benchmarks, particularly for false-positive rate and PPV2, indicating an opportunity for education.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1076-6332</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-4046</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.013</identifier><identifier>PMID: 22130089</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>accuracy ; Attitude of Health Personnel ; Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology ; False Positive Reactions ; false-positive rate ; Female ; Goals ; Humans ; Male ; Mammography - statistics & numerical data ; Observer Variation ; Physicians - statistics & numerical data ; Prevalence ; Professional Competence - statistics & numerical data ; Radiology ; Registries - statistics & numerical data ; Screening mammography ; United States - epidemiology</subject><ispartof>Academic radiology, 2012-03, Vol.19 (3), p.289-295</ispartof><rights>AUR</rights><rights>2012 AUR</rights><rights>Copyright © 2012 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2011 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-c29b336cf6aaeaa4deaceb17ab5dbd1abc293092409df67bf0122a874f149e373</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-c29b336cf6aaeaa4deaceb17ab5dbd1abc293092409df67bf0122a874f149e373</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S107663321100496X$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22130089$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Sara L., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cook, Andrea J., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carney, Patricia A., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geller, Berta M., EdD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onega, Tracy, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenberg, Robert D., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brenner, R. James, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elmore, Joann G., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><title>Are Radiologists’ Goals for Mammography Accuracy Consistent with Published Recommendations?</title><title>Academic radiology</title><addtitle>Acad Radiol</addtitle><description>Rationale and Objectives Mammography quality assurance programs have been in place for more than a decade. We studied radiologists’ self-reported performance goals for accuracy in screening mammography and compared them to published recommendations. Materials and Methods A mailed survey of radiologists at mammography registries in seven states within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) assessed radiologists’ performance goals for interpreting screening mammograms. Self-reported goals were compared to published American College of Radiology (ACR) recommended desirable ranges for recall rate, false-positive rate, positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), and cancer detection rate. Radiologists’ goals for interpretive accuracy within desirable range were evaluated for associations with their demographic characteristics, clinical experience, and receipt of audit reports. Results The survey response rate was 71% (257 of 364 radiologists). The percentage of radiologists reporting goals within desirable ranges was 79% for recall rate, 22% for false-positive rate, 39% for PPV2, and 61% for cancer detection rate. The range of reported goals was 0%–100% for false-positive rate and PPV2. Primary academic affiliation, receiving more hours of breast imaging continuing medical education, and receiving audit reports at least annually were associated with desirable PPV2 goals. Radiologists reporting desirable cancer detection rate goals were more likely to have interpreted mammograms for 10 or more years, and >1000 mammograms per year. Conclusion Many radiologists report goals for their accuracy when interpreting screening mammograms that fall outside of published desirable benchmarks, particularly for false-positive rate and PPV2, indicating an opportunity for education.</description><subject>accuracy</subject><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</subject><subject>False Positive Reactions</subject><subject>false-positive rate</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Goals</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mammography - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Physicians - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Prevalence</subject><subject>Professional Competence - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Registries - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Screening mammography</subject><subject>United States - epidemiology</subject><issn>1076-6332</issn><issn>1878-4046</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9ksFu1DAQhiNERUvhBTig3DhlO7azTiKhotUKWqQiUAGJC7Im9mTXSxJv7aRob32Nvl6fBEdbKuDAydb4-3-P5p8kecFgxoDJk80MtccZB8ZiYQZMPEqOWFmUWQ65fBzvUMhMCsEPk6chbADYXJbiSXLIORMAZXWUfF94Si_RWNe6lQ1DuLu5Tc8ctiFtnE8_YNe5lcftepcutB496l26dH2IKPVD-tMO6_TTWLc2rMmkl6Rd11FvcLARevMsOWiiFT2_P4-Tr-_eflmeZxcfz94vFxeZnkM1ZJpXtRBSNxKREHNDqKlmBdZzUxuGdQQEVDyHyjSyqBtgnGNZ5A3LKxKFOE5O977bse7I6Niax1Ztve3Q75RDq_5-6e1ardy1ErzIJSujwat7A--uRgqD6mzQ1LbYkxuDqjgIOS8LEUm-J7V3IXhqHn5hoKZY1EZNsagplqkWY4mil3_29yD5nUMEXu8BilO6tuRV0JZ6TcZ60oMyzv7f__QfuW5tbzW2P2hHYeNG38f5K6YCV6A-T4sx7QVjAHklv4lfIna3Uw</recordid><startdate>20120301</startdate><enddate>20120301</enddate><creator>Jackson, Sara L., MD, MPH</creator><creator>Cook, Andrea J., PhD</creator><creator>Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD</creator><creator>Carney, Patricia A., PhD</creator><creator>Geller, Berta M., EdD</creator><creator>Onega, Tracy, PhD</creator><creator>Rosenberg, Robert D., MD</creator><creator>Brenner, R. James, MD</creator><creator>Elmore, Joann G., MD, MPH</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20120301</creationdate><title>Are Radiologists’ Goals for Mammography Accuracy Consistent with Published Recommendations?</title><author>Jackson, Sara L., MD, MPH ; Cook, Andrea J., PhD ; Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD ; Carney, Patricia A., PhD ; Geller, Berta M., EdD ; Onega, Tracy, PhD ; Rosenberg, Robert D., MD ; Brenner, R. James, MD ; Elmore, Joann G., MD, MPH</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c509t-c29b336cf6aaeaa4deaceb17ab5dbd1abc293092409df67bf0122a874f149e373</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>accuracy</topic><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology</topic><topic>False Positive Reactions</topic><topic>false-positive rate</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Goals</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mammography - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Physicians - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Prevalence</topic><topic>Professional Competence - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Registries - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Screening mammography</topic><topic>United States - epidemiology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Sara L., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cook, Andrea J., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Carney, Patricia A., PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Geller, Berta M., EdD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Onega, Tracy, PhD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosenberg, Robert D., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brenner, R. James, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elmore, Joann G., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Academic radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jackson, Sara L., MD, MPH</au><au>Cook, Andrea J., PhD</au><au>Miglioretti, Diana L., PhD</au><au>Carney, Patricia A., PhD</au><au>Geller, Berta M., EdD</au><au>Onega, Tracy, PhD</au><au>Rosenberg, Robert D., MD</au><au>Brenner, R. James, MD</au><au>Elmore, Joann G., MD, MPH</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Are Radiologists’ Goals for Mammography Accuracy Consistent with Published Recommendations?</atitle><jtitle>Academic radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Acad Radiol</addtitle><date>2012-03-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>289</spage><epage>295</epage><pages>289-295</pages><issn>1076-6332</issn><eissn>1878-4046</eissn><abstract>Rationale and Objectives Mammography quality assurance programs have been in place for more than a decade. We studied radiologists’ self-reported performance goals for accuracy in screening mammography and compared them to published recommendations. Materials and Methods A mailed survey of radiologists at mammography registries in seven states within the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) assessed radiologists’ performance goals for interpreting screening mammograms. Self-reported goals were compared to published American College of Radiology (ACR) recommended desirable ranges for recall rate, false-positive rate, positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV2), and cancer detection rate. Radiologists’ goals for interpretive accuracy within desirable range were evaluated for associations with their demographic characteristics, clinical experience, and receipt of audit reports. Results The survey response rate was 71% (257 of 364 radiologists). The percentage of radiologists reporting goals within desirable ranges was 79% for recall rate, 22% for false-positive rate, 39% for PPV2, and 61% for cancer detection rate. The range of reported goals was 0%–100% for false-positive rate and PPV2. Primary academic affiliation, receiving more hours of breast imaging continuing medical education, and receiving audit reports at least annually were associated with desirable PPV2 goals. Radiologists reporting desirable cancer detection rate goals were more likely to have interpreted mammograms for 10 or more years, and >1000 mammograms per year. Conclusion Many radiologists report goals for their accuracy when interpreting screening mammograms that fall outside of published desirable benchmarks, particularly for false-positive rate and PPV2, indicating an opportunity for education.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>22130089</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.013</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1076-6332 |
ispartof | Academic radiology, 2012-03, Vol.19 (3), p.289-295 |
issn | 1076-6332 1878-4046 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3274618 |
source | MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals |
subjects | accuracy Attitude of Health Personnel Breast Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Breast Neoplasms - epidemiology False Positive Reactions false-positive rate Female Goals Humans Male Mammography - statistics & numerical data Observer Variation Physicians - statistics & numerical data Prevalence Professional Competence - statistics & numerical data Radiology Registries - statistics & numerical data Screening mammography United States - epidemiology |
title | Are Radiologists’ Goals for Mammography Accuracy Consistent with Published Recommendations? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T10%3A20%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Are%20Radiologists%E2%80%99%20Goals%20for%20Mammography%20Accuracy%20Consistent%20with%20Published%20Recommendations?&rft.jtitle=Academic%20radiology&rft.au=Jackson,%20Sara%20L.,%20MD,%20MPH&rft.date=2012-03-01&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=289&rft.epage=295&rft.pages=289-295&rft.issn=1076-6332&rft.eissn=1878-4046&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.acra.2011.10.013&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E920365873%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=920365873&rft_id=info:pmid/22130089&rft_els_id=S107663321100496X&rfr_iscdi=true |