Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2004 May-Jun;24(3):255-64.
doi: 10.1177/0272989X04265480.

Radiologist uncertainty and the interpretation of screening

Patricia A Carney  1 , Joann G Elmore, Linn A Abraham, Martha S Gerrity, R Edward Hendrick, Stephen H Taplin, William E Barlow, Gary R Cutter, Steven P Poplack, Carl J D'Orsi
Affiliations

Radiologist uncertainty and the interpretation of screening

Patricia A Carney et al. Med Decis Making. 2004 May-Jun.

Abstract

Objective: To determine radiologists' reactions to uncertainty when interpreting mammography and the extent to which radiologist uncertainty explains variability in interpretive performance.

Methods: The authors used a mailed survey to assess demographic and clinical characteristics of radiologists and reactions to uncertainty associated with practice. Responses were linked to radiologists' actual interpretive performance data obtained from 3 regionally located mammography registries.

Results: More than 180 radiologists were eligible to participate, and 139 consented for a response rate of 76.8%. Radiologist gender, more years interpreting, and higher volume were associated with lower uncertainty scores. Positive predictive value, recall rates, and specificity were more affected by reactions to uncertainty than sensitivity or negative predictive value; however, none of these relationships was statistically significant.

Conclusion: Certain practice factors, such as gender and years of interpretive experience, affect uncertainty scores. Radiologists' reactions to uncertainty do not appear to affect interpretive performance.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Uncertainty score by interpretive experience and volume (n = 120).
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) Relationship between uncertainty score and standard performance indices: sensitivity and specificity. (b) Relationship between uncertainty score and standard performance indices: positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Relationship between radiologist recall rate in clinical practice and uncertainty score from survey.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Elmore J, Wells C, Lee C, Howard D, Feinstein A. Variability in radiologists’ interpretations of mammograms. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(22):1493–9. - PubMed
    1. Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:209–13. - PubMed
    1. Brown M, Houn F, Sickles E, Kessler L. Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:1373–7. - PubMed
    1. Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Factors affecting radiologist in consistency in screening mammography. Acad Radiol. 2002;9:531–40. - PubMed
    1. Physicians Insurers Association of America Data Sharing Committee. Cumulative Reports, January 1st, 1985-June 30, 1996. Rockville (MD): Physicians Insurers Association of America; 1996.

Publication types