Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22130089›Full record

ArticleAcademic radiology2012

Are radiologists' goals for mammography accuracy consistent with published recommendations?

Sara L Jackson, Andrea J Cook, Diana L Miglioretti, Patricia A Carney, Berta M Geller, Tracy Onega, Robert D Rosenberg, R James Brenner, Joann G Elmore

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Academic radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Visual Search: How Do We Find What We Are Looking For?Annual review of vision science · 2020
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Sara L JacksonDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98104, USA. sljack@uw.edu
Andrea J Cook
Diana L Miglioretti
Patricia A Carney
Berta M Geller
Tracy Onega
Robert D Rosenberg
R James Brenner
Joann G Elmore

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
Analgesic and subjective effects of terpenes administered alone and in combination with THC: Potential THC- and opioid-sparing effects of myrcene and ß-caryophylleneR01AT010762 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI COOPER, ZIVA D · 2020 to 2025
$4.0M
Understanding Variability in Community MammographyR01CA107623 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G · 2004 to 2008
$3.7M
Accuracy of Breast Pathology and the Impact of Double ReadingR01CA140560 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G, WEAVER, DONALD LEE · 2009 to 2013
$3.3M
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
NCCIH NIH HHS R01 AT010762NCI NIH HHS 1K05 CA104699NCI NIH HHS 1R01 CA10762NCI NIH HHS K05 CA104699NCI NIH HHS R01 CA107623NCI NIH HHS R01 CA140560NCI 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 U01CA86082NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA010762
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RATIONALE AND

objectivesMammography 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

methodsA 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.

resultsThe 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.

conclusionMany 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.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelGoalsBreast NeoplasmsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansMaleMammographyObserver VariationPhysiciansPrevalenceProfessional CompetenceRegistriesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID22130089
PMCPMC3274618

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.