 |
|
The Impact of Clinical History on Mammographic Interpretations
Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH;
Carolyn K. Wells, MPH;
Debra H. Howard, MD;
Alvan R. Feinstein, MD, MS
JAMA. 1997;277(1):49-52.
Abstract
| |
Objective.
—To determine whether mammographic interpretations are biased by the patient's clinical history.
Design.
—On 2 occasions, separated by a 5-month wash-out period, 10 radiologists read mammograms for the same 100 women, randomly divided into 2 groups of 50. For 1 group, the clinical history was supplied for the first reading and omitted (except for age) for the second reading. This sequence was reversed in the other group. In addition, 5 cases were shown a third time with a deliberately leading sham history.
Patients.
—Selected with stratified random sampling from 3 categories of diagnostic findings (64 had mammographic abnormalities) and from the definitive designation of breast cancer or no breast cancer (18 had breast cancer).
Main Outcome Measures.
—Radiologists' diagnostic accuracy and directional changes in interpretations and recommendations between the 2 readings.
Results.
—The direction suggested by the history led to small but consistent changes in the interpretations. Overall diagnostic accuracy was not altered, but recommendations were affected for appropriate further diagnostic workup: an alerting history (eg, breast symptoms or family history of breast cancer) increased the number of workups recommended in patients without cancer (P=.01); and a nonalerting history led to fewer recommended workups in the cancer patients (P=.02). The direction of the sham histories led an average of 4 of the 10 radiologists to change previous diagnoses and an average of 1 radiologist to change a previous biopsy recommendation.
Conclusions.
—Knoweldge of the clinical history may alter a radiologist's level of diagnostic suspicion without improving performance in either diagnosis or management recommendations.
Author Affiliations
From the Departments of Internal Medicine and Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle (Dr Elmore); the Departments of Internal Medicine (Ms Wells and Dr Feinstein) and Epidemiology and Public Health (Dr Feinstein), Yale University, New Haven, Conn: and the Department of Internal Medicine, New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY (Dr Howard).
Footnotes
Reprints: Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Room BB527E HSB, Box 356420, 1959 NE Pacific St, Seattle, WA 98195 (e-mail: jelmore @u.washington.edu).
Topics in Radiology section editors: Ronald G. Evens, MD, Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Mo; Charles B. Clayman, MD, Contributing Editor, JAMA.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Lesion and Patient Characteristics Associated with Malignancy After a Probably Benign Finding on Community Practice Mammography
Lehman et al.
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008;190:511-515.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Mammographers' Perception of Women's Breast Cancer Risk
Egger et al.
Med Decis Making 2005;25:283-289.
ABSTRACT
Physician Predictors of Mammographic Accuracy
Smith-Bindman et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:358-367.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Breast cancer screening, diagnostic accuracy and health care policies
Urbain
CMAJ 2005;172:210-211.
FULL TEXT
Molecular Breast Imaging: A New Technique Using Technetium Tc 99m Scintimammography to Detect Small Tumors of the Breast
Rhodes et al.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2005;80:24-30.
ABSTRACT
Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests Read With and Without Clinical Information: A Systematic Review
Loy and Irwig
JAMA 2004;292:1602-1609.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Radiographs in the Office: Is a Second Reading Always Needed?
Smith et al.
J Am Board Fam Med 2004;17:256-263.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Sources of Variation and Bias in Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: A Systematic Review
Whiting et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2004;140:189-202.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Performance of Diagnostic Mammography for Women With Signs or Symptoms of Breast Cancer
Barlow et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1151-1159.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Effects of Proficiency and Bias on Residents' Interpretation of the Microscopic Urinalysis
Flach et al.
Med Decis Making 2002;22:318-325.
ABSTRACT
Performance of Screening Mammography among Women with and without a First-Degree Relative with Breast Cancer
Kerlikowske et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2000;133:855-863.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Predicting the Cumulative Risk of False-Positive Mammograms
Christiansen et al.
JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1657-1666.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Assessing the Risk of Breast Cancer
Rhoads et al.
NEJM 2000;342:2002-2003.
FULL TEXT
Interobserver Variability in Applying a Radiographic Definition for ARDS
Rubenfeld et al.
Chest 1999;116:1347-1353.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Power of Suggestion: Do Histories Bias Mammogram Readings?
JWatch Women's Health 1997;1997:6-6.
FULL TEXT
|
