Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography: are they related?

Joann G. Elmore, Andrea J. Cook, Andy Bogart, Patricia (Patty) Carney, Berta M. Geller, Stephen H. Taplin, Diana S M Buist, Tracy Onega, Christoph I. Lee, Diana L. Miglioretti

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to determine whether radiologists who perform well in screening also perform well in interpreting diagnostic mammography. Materials and methods We evaluated the accuracy of 468 radiologists interpreting 2,234,947 screening and 196,164 diagnostic mammograms. Adjusting for site, radiologist, and patient characteristics, we identified radiologists with performance in the highest tertile and compared to those with lower performance. Results A moderate correlation was noted for radiologists' accuracy when interpreting screening versus their accuracy on diagnostic examinations: sensitivity (rspearman=0.51, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.80; P=.0006) and specificity (rspearman=0.40, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.49; P

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1096-1103
Number of pages8
JournalClinical Imaging
Volume40
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016

Fingerprint

Mammography
Radiologists

Keywords

  • Diagnostic mammography
  • Interpretive performance
  • Screening mammography
  • Sensitivity
  • Specificity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Elmore, J. G., Cook, A. J., Bogart, A., Carney, P. P., Geller, B. M., Taplin, S. H., ... Miglioretti, D. L. (2016). Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography: are they related? Clinical Imaging, 40(6), 1096-1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.06.014

Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography : are they related? / Elmore, Joann G.; Cook, Andrea J.; Bogart, Andy; Carney, Patricia (Patty); Geller, Berta M.; Taplin, Stephen H.; Buist, Diana S M; Onega, Tracy; Lee, Christoph I.; Miglioretti, Diana L.

In: Clinical Imaging, Vol. 40, No. 6, 01.11.2016, p. 1096-1103.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Elmore, JG, Cook, AJ, Bogart, A, Carney, PP, Geller, BM, Taplin, SH, Buist, DSM, Onega, T, Lee, CI & Miglioretti, DL 2016, 'Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography: are they related?', Clinical Imaging, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1096-1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.06.014
Elmore, Joann G. ; Cook, Andrea J. ; Bogart, Andy ; Carney, Patricia (Patty) ; Geller, Berta M. ; Taplin, Stephen H. ; Buist, Diana S M ; Onega, Tracy ; Lee, Christoph I. ; Miglioretti, Diana L. / Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography : are they related?. In: Clinical Imaging. 2016 ; Vol. 40, No. 6. pp. 1096-1103.
@article{3931daef13f746a5949dede600ef3c82,
title = "Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography: are they related?",
abstract = "Purpose This study aims to determine whether radiologists who perform well in screening also perform well in interpreting diagnostic mammography. Materials and methods We evaluated the accuracy of 468 radiologists interpreting 2,234,947 screening and 196,164 diagnostic mammograms. Adjusting for site, radiologist, and patient characteristics, we identified radiologists with performance in the highest tertile and compared to those with lower performance. Results A moderate correlation was noted for radiologists' accuracy when interpreting screening versus their accuracy on diagnostic examinations: sensitivity (rspearman=0.51, 95{\%} CI: 0.22, 0.80; P=.0006) and specificity (rspearman=0.40, 95{\%} CI: 0.30, 0.49; P",
keywords = "Diagnostic mammography, Interpretive performance, Screening mammography, Sensitivity, Specificity",
author = "Elmore, {Joann G.} and Cook, {Andrea J.} and Andy Bogart and Carney, {Patricia (Patty)} and Geller, {Berta M.} and Taplin, {Stephen H.} and Buist, {Diana S M} and Tracy Onega and Lee, {Christoph I.} and Miglioretti, {Diana L.}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.06.014",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "1096--1103",
journal = "Clinical Imaging",
issn = "0899-7071",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Radiologists' interpretive skills in screening vs. diagnostic mammography

T2 - are they related?

AU - Elmore, Joann G.

AU - Cook, Andrea J.

AU - Bogart, Andy

AU - Carney, Patricia (Patty)

AU - Geller, Berta M.

AU - Taplin, Stephen H.

AU - Buist, Diana S M

AU - Onega, Tracy

AU - Lee, Christoph I.

AU - Miglioretti, Diana L.

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - Purpose This study aims to determine whether radiologists who perform well in screening also perform well in interpreting diagnostic mammography. Materials and methods We evaluated the accuracy of 468 radiologists interpreting 2,234,947 screening and 196,164 diagnostic mammograms. Adjusting for site, radiologist, and patient characteristics, we identified radiologists with performance in the highest tertile and compared to those with lower performance. Results A moderate correlation was noted for radiologists' accuracy when interpreting screening versus their accuracy on diagnostic examinations: sensitivity (rspearman=0.51, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.80; P=.0006) and specificity (rspearman=0.40, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.49; P

AB - Purpose This study aims to determine whether radiologists who perform well in screening also perform well in interpreting diagnostic mammography. Materials and methods We evaluated the accuracy of 468 radiologists interpreting 2,234,947 screening and 196,164 diagnostic mammograms. Adjusting for site, radiologist, and patient characteristics, we identified radiologists with performance in the highest tertile and compared to those with lower performance. Results A moderate correlation was noted for radiologists' accuracy when interpreting screening versus their accuracy on diagnostic examinations: sensitivity (rspearman=0.51, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.80; P=.0006) and specificity (rspearman=0.40, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.49; P

KW - Diagnostic mammography

KW - Interpretive performance

KW - Screening mammography

KW - Sensitivity

KW - Specificity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84978647085&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84978647085&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.06.014

DO - 10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.06.014

M3 - Article

C2 - 27438069

AN - SCOPUS:84978647085

VL - 40

SP - 1096

EP - 1103

JO - Clinical Imaging

JF - Clinical Imaging

SN - 0899-7071

IS - 6

ER -