© 2003 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 95, No. 4, 250-252,
February 19, 2003
© 2003 Oxford University Press
EDITORIAL |
Does Practice Make Perfect When Interpreting Mammography? Part II
Affiliations of authors: J. G. Elmore (Department of Internal Medicine), D. L. Miglioretti (Center for Health Studies, Group Health Cooperative and Department of Biostatistics), University of Washington, Seattle; P. A. Carney, Department of Community and Family Medicine, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH.
Correspondence to: Joann G. Elmore, M.D., M.P.H., Department of Internal Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Harborview Medical Center, 325 Ninth Ave., Box 359780, Seattle, WA 98104-2499 (e-mail: jelmore@u.washington.edu).
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
"The art of the practice of medicine is to be learned only by experience; ‘tis not an inheritance; it cannot be revealed. Learn to see, learn to hear, learn to feel, learn to smell, and know that by practice alone can you become expert."
Sir William Osler (1)
The accuracy of screening mammography relies on a human interpreter. It seems intuitive that high levels of accuracy would occur for radiologists who routinely interpret high volumes, have many years of experience, and who audit the results of women undergoing breast biopsies at their recommendation. This statement, although based on common sense, is not supported by the analyses presented by Beam et al. (2) in this issue of the Journal.
Beam et al. studied the association between self-reported annual interpretation volume and radiologist accuracy in screening mammography. The authors asked 110 U.S. radiologists to interpret a test set
WHAT DEFINES AN EXPERIENCED MAMMOGRAPHER?
DO ARTIFICIAL TEST ENVIRONMENTS REFLECT THE REAL WORLD?
COMPLEX STATISTICAL MODELS—SHOULD WE BELIEVE THEM?
WHAT SHOULD WOMEN DO?
WHAT SHOULD RADIOLOGISTS DO?
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. G. Elmore, L. M. Reisch, M. B. Barton, W. E. Barlow, S. Rolnick, E. L. Harris, L. J. Herrinton, A. M. Geiger, R. K. Beverly, G. Hart, et al. Efficacy of Breast Cancer Screening in the Community According to Risk Level J Natl Cancer Inst, July 20, 2005; 97(14): 1035 - 1043. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. G. Elmore, K. Armstrong, C. D. Lehman, and S. W. Fletcher Screening for Breast Cancer JAMA, March 9, 2005; 293(10): 1245 - 1256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Smith-Bindman, P. Chu, D. L. Miglioretti, C. Quale, R. D. Rosenberg, G. Cutter, B. Geller, P. Bacchetti, E. A. Sickles, and K. Kerlikowske Physician Predictors of Mammographic Accuracy J Natl Cancer Inst, March 2, 2005; 97(5): 358 - 367. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Theberge, N. Hebert-Croteau, A. Langlois, D. Major, and J. Brisson Volume of screening mammography and performance in the Quebec population-based Breast Cancer Screening Program Can. Med. Assoc. J., January 18, 2005; 172(2): 195 - 199. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S M Astley Computer-based detection and prompting of mammographic abnormalities Br. J. Radiol., December 1, 2004; 77(suppl_2): S194 - S200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. G. Elmore, C. Y. Nakano, T. D. Koepsell, L. M. Desnick, C. J. D'Orsi, and D. F. Ransohoff International Variation in Screening Mammography Interpretations in Community-Based Programs J Natl Cancer Inst, September 17, 2003; 95(18): 1384 - 1393. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|