Performance Parameters for Screening and Diagnostic Mammography: Specialist and General Radiologists

References

• 1 Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists: findings from a national sample. Arch Intern Med 1996; 156: 209-213.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 2 Beam CA, Sullivan DC, Layde PM. Effect of human variability on independent double reading in screening mammography. Acad Radiol 1996; 3: 891-897.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 3 Elmore JG, Wells CK, Howard DH. Does diagnostic accuracy in mammography depend on radiologist experience? J Womens Health 1998; 7: 443-449.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 4 Sickles EA, Ominsky SH, Sollitto RA, Galvin HB, Monticciolo DL. Medical audit of a rapid throughput mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations. Radiology 1990; 175: 323-327.
  Google Scholar
• 5 Linver MN, Paster SB, Rosenberg RD, et al. Improvement in mammography interpretation skills in a community radiology practice after dedicated teaching courses: 2-year medical audit of 38,633 cases. Radiology 1992; 184: 39-43.
  Google Scholar
• 6 Pamilo M, Anttinen I, Soiva M, Roiha M, Suramo I. Mammography screening: reasons for recall and the influence of experience on recall in the Finnish system. Clin Radiol 1990; 41: 384-387.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 7 Sickles EA. Quality assurance: how to audit your own mammography practice. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30: 265-275.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 8 Robertson CL. A private breast imaging practice: medical audit of 25,788 screening and 1,077 diagnostic examinations. Radiology 1993; 187: 75-79.
  Google Scholar
• 9 Sickles EA. Auditing your practice. In: Kopans DB, Mendelson EB, eds. Syllabus: a categorical course in breast imaging. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 1995; 81-91.
  Google Scholar
• 10 Kan L, Olivotto IA, Warren Burhenne LJ, Sickles EA, Coleman AJ. Standardized abnormal interpretation and cancer detection ratios to assess reading volume and reader performance in a breast screening program. Radiology 2000; 215: 563-567.
  Google Scholar
• 11 Dee KE, Sickles EA. Medical audit of diagnostic mammography examinations: comparison with screening outcomes obtained concurrently. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001; 176: 729-733.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 12 Sickles EA. The usefulness of computers in managing the operation of a mammography screening practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990; 155: 755-761.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 13 United States Food and Drug Administration. Quality mammography standards: final rule—21 CFR parts 16 and 900 Washington, DC: United States Department of Health and Human Services, 1997.
  Google Scholar
• 14 American Joint Committee on Cancer. Manual for staging of cancer 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott, 1997.
  Google Scholar
• 15 Warren Burhenne LJ, Hislop TG, Burhenne HJ. The British Columbia mammography screening program: evaluation of the first 15 months. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992; 158: 45-49.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 16 Curpen BN, Sickles EA, Sollitto RA, Ominsky SH, Galvin HB, Frankel SD. The comparative value of mammographic screening for women 40–49 years old versus women 50–64 years old. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164: 1099-1103.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 17 Otten JDM, van Dijck JAAM, Peer PGM, et al. Long term breast cancer screening in Nijmegen, the Netherlands: the nine rounds from 1975–92. J Epidemiol Community Health 1996; 50: 353-358.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 18 Libstug AR, Moravan V, Aitken SE. Results from the Ontario breast screening program, 1990–1995. J Med Screen 1998; 5: 73-80.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 19 Sickles EA, Ominsky SH, Sollitto RA, Galvin HB, Monticciolo DL. Medical audit of a rapid-throughput mammography screening practice: methodology and results of 27,114 examinations. Radiology 1990; 175: 323-327.
  Google Scholar
• 20 Tabár L, Fagerberg G, Duffy SW, Day NE, Gad A, Gröntoft O. Update of the Swedish two-county program of mammographic screening for breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30: 187-210.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 21 Frankel SD, Sickles EA, Curpen BN, Sollitto RA, Ominsky SH, Galvin HB. Initial versus subsequent screening mammography: comparison of findings and their prognostic significance. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164: 1107-1109.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 22 Callaway MP, Boggis CRM, Astley SA, Hutt I. The influence of previous films on screening mammographic interpretation and detection of breast carcinoma. Clin Radiol 1997; 52: 527-529.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 23 Fracheboud J, de Koning HJ, Beemsterboer PMM, et al. Nationwide breast cancer screening in the Netherlands: results of initial and subsequent screening 1990–1995. Int J Cancer 1998; 75: 694-698.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 24 Freer TW, Ulissey MJ. Screening mammography with computer-aided detection: prospective study of 12,860 patients in a community breast center. Radiology 2001; 220: 781-786.
  Google Scholar