|
Associations among experience-related variables in the 21 radiologists routinely interpreting mammograms and sensitivity, specificity and overall accuracy (multivariate analysis). |
|||||||||
| Sensitivity |
Specificity |
Accuracy† |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Adj. OR |
95% CI |
P |
Adj. OR |
95% CI |
P |
Adj. OR |
95% CI |
P |
|
|
|
|||||||||
| Annual volume of mammogram Reading |
|||||||||
| More than 5,000 mammograms |
0.93 |
(0.56 to 1.54) |
0.780 |
1.15 |
(0.98 to 1.35) |
0.090 |
1.06 |
(0.90 to 1.25) |
0.450 |
| Less than 5,000 mammograms |
1.00 |
(reference) |
1.00 |
(reference) |
1.00 |
(reference) |
|||
| Feedback |
|||||||||
| Yes |
0.98 |
(0.43 to 2.27) |
0.957 |
1.37 |
(1.03 to 1.85) |
0.029 |
1.19 |
(0.89 to 1.56) |
0.243 |
| No |
1.00 |
(reference) |
1.00 |
(reference) |
1.00 |
(reference) |
|||
| Percentage of time spent on breast radiology |
|||||||||
| Less than 25% |
0.70 |
(0.36 to 1.37) |
0.295 |
1.49 |
(1.18 to 1.89) |
0.001 |
1.10 |
(0.87 to 1.38) |
0.438 |
| More than 25% |
1.00 |
(reference) |
1.00 |
(reference) |
1.00 |
(reference) |
|||
| Years of practice reading mammograms |
|||||||||
| Less than 10 years |
1.40 |
(0.84 to 2.34) |
0.193 |
1.04 |
(0.89 to 1.21) |
0.640 |
1.14 |
(0.97 to 1.34) |
0.102 |
| More than 10 years |
1.00 |
(reference) |
1.00 |
(reference) |
1.00 |
(reference) |
|||
| Do the radiologist usually consult with other radiologists when reading? |
|||||||||
| Yes |
0.61 |
(0.29 to 1.30) |
0.202 |
1.04 |
(0.84 to 1.28) |
0.717 |
0.89 |
(0.71 to 1.11) |
0.300 |
| No |
1.00 |
(reference) |
1.00 |
(reference) |
1.00 |
(reference) |
|||
| Radiologist' age |
|||||||||
| More than 45 |
0.56 |
(0.31 to 1.01) |
0.053 |
1.33 |
(1.12 to 1.59) |
0.001 |
1.00 |
(0.83 to 1.19) |
0.971 |
| Less than 45 |
1.00 |
(reference) |
1.00 |
(reference) |
1.00 |
(reference) |
|||
|
Adj. OR: Adjusted odds-ratio; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; P: Chi-square probability † Correct diagnosis of both cancer and absence of cancer on recalling women for additional investigations. | |||||||||
Molins et al. BMC Health Services Research 2008 8:91 doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-91 |
|||||||||