Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20457418›Full record

ArticleAcademic radiology2010

Radiologists' attitudes and use of mammography audit reports.

Joann G Elmore, Erin J Aiello Bowles, Berta Geller, Natalia Vukshich Oster, Patricia A Carney, Diana L Miglioretti, Diana S M Buist, Karla Kerlikowske, Edward A Sickles, Tracy Onega and 2 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Academic radiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Web-based mammography audit feedback.AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2012
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 9 institutions in 2 countries.

Joann G ElmoreDivision of General Internal Medicine, 325 Ninth Avenue, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98104, USA.
Erin J Aiello Bowles
Berta Geller
Natalia Vukshich Oster
Patricia A Carney
Diana L Miglioretti
Diana S M Buist
Karla Kerlikowske
Edward A Sickles
Tracy Onega
Robert D Rosenberg
Bonnie C Yankaskas
Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Washington · USDartmouth College · USGroup Health Cooperative · USOregon Health & Science University · USUniversity of New Mexico · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Vermont · US

Funding

Statistical Coordinating Center for the Breast Cancer Surveillance ConsortiumU01CA086076 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI MIGLIORETTI, DIANA L · 2000 to 2011
$8.5M
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF MAMMOGRAPHIC INTERPRETATIONU01CA063731 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI BUIST, DIANA SM · 1994 to 2011
$6.7M
VERMONT BREAST CANCER SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMU01CA070013 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT &ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI GELLER, BERTA M · 1995 to 2011
$6.7M
UTILITY AND OUTCOMES FROM MAMMOGRAPHY IN NORTH CAROLINAU01CA070040 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI YANKASKAS, BONNIE C · 1995 to 2011
$6.4M
San Francisco Mammography Registry-A Research SourceU01CA063740 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KERLIKOWSKE, KARLA M · 1994 to 2011
$6.2M
STRATEGIC STUDIES IN BREAST CANCER SURVEILLANCEU01CA086082 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI ONEGA, TRACY · 2000 to 2011
$4.9M
Understanding Variability in Community MammographyR01CA107623 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G · 2004 to 2008
$3.7M
REFERRAL PATTERNS AND COST ANALYSIS OF SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY--FOLLOW-UP/BIOPSYU01CA063736 · NCI · COOPER INSTITUTE · PI CUTTER, GARY · 1994 to 2004
$2.7M
NEW MEXICO MAMMOGRAPHY PROJECTU01CA069976 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO · PI ROSENBERG, ROBERT D · 1995 to 2005
$2.7M
Improving Accuracy &Outcomes of Breast Cancer ScreeningK05CA104699 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G · 2004 to 2014
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS 1K05 CA104699NCI NIH HHS 1R01 CA107623NCI NIH HHS K05 CA104699NCI NIH HHS R01 CA 107623NCI NIH HHS R01 CA107623NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063731NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063736NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063740NCI NIH HHS U01 CA069976NCI NIH HHS U01 CA070013NCI NIH HHS U01 CA070040NCI NIH HHS U01 CA086076NCI NIH HHS U01 CA086082NCI NIH HHS U01CA63731NCI NIH HHS U01CA63736NCI NIH HHS U01CA63740NCI NIH HHS U01CA69976NCI NIH HHS U01CA70013NCI NIH HHS U01CA70040NCI NIH HHS U01CA86076NCI NIH HHS U01CA86082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RATIONALE AND

objectivesThe US Mammography Quality Standards Act mandates medical audits to track breast cancer outcomes data associated with interpretive performance. The objectives of our study were to assess the content and style of audits and examine use of, attitudes toward, and perceptions of the value that radiologists' have regarding mandated medical audits. MATERIALS AND

methodsRadiologists (n = 364) at mammography registries in seven US states contributing data to the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium (BCSC) were invited to participate. We examined radiologists' demographic characteristics, clinical experience, use, attitudes, and perceived value of audit reports from results of a self-administered survey. Information on the content and style of BCSC audits provided to radiologists and facilities was obtained from site investigators. Radiologists' characteristics were analyzed according to whether or not they self-reported receiving regular mammography audit reports. Latent class analysis was used to classify radiologists' individual perceptions of audit reports into overall probabilities of having "favorable," "less favorable," "neutral," or "unfavorable" attitudes toward audit reports.

resultsSeventy-one percent (257 of 364) of radiologists completed the survey; two radiologists did not complete the audit survey question, leaving 255 for the final study cohort. Most survey respondents received regular audits (91%), paid close attention to their audit numbers (83%), found the reports valuable (87%), and felt that audit reports prompted them to improve interpretative performance (75%). Variability was noted in the style, target audience, and frequency of reports provided by the BCSC registries. One in four radiologists reported that if Congress mandates more intensive auditing requirements, but does not provide funding to support this regulation they may stop interpreting mammograms.

conclusionRadiologists working in breast imaging generally had favorable opinions of audit reports, which were mandated by Congress; however, almost 1 in 10 radiologists reported that they did not receive audits.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelBreast NeoplasmsClinical AuditFemaleHumansMammographyPhysiciansRadiologyUnited States

Identifiers

PMID20457418
PMCPMC2894027
OpenAlexW2081342867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.