PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

A E Sierra

Publications and source records attributed to A E Sierra.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

Measuring performance in chest radiography.

PURPOSE: To use a standardized set of chest radiographs to quantify interobserver differences and to provide a basis for comparing the diagnostic performance of physicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A standardized set of 60 chest radiographs was presented to 162 study participants. Each participant reviewed the radiographs and recorded his or her diagnostic impression by using a fixed five-point scale. These response data were used to generate receiver operating characteristic curves and to establish performance benchmarks. The variations in performance were tested for statistical significance. RESULTS: Significant interobserver variability was identified during these assessments. The composite group of board-certified radiologists demonstrated performance superior to that of the radiology residents and nonradiologist physicians. CONCLUSION: By using a receiver operating characteristic approach and a standardized set of chest radiographs, observer accuracy and variability are easily quantified. This approach provides a basis for comparing the diagnostic performance of physicians. When value is measured as a diminution in uncertainty, board-certified radiologists contribute substantial value to the diagnostic imaging system.

Certification↗

Readability of the radiologic report.

To objectively assess the linguistic complexity of radiographic reports, the authors retrospectively performed readability analysis on 10,361 reports dictated by seven attending radiologists in 1989. A commercial writing evaluation program was used to determine the Flesch-Kincaid readability index of each report. Four radiographic modalities were studied: general radiography, mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Analysis of the reports demonstrated that the average readability index was consistently higher for mammography and MRI when compared with ultrasound and general radiology. Reports were categorized by radiologist and modality, and a two-way analysis of variance was performed that showed a significant difference between radiologist and modality (F = 18.6, P less than .001). To assess the relevance of this observation, 40 chest radiographic reports, randomly selected from the reports in the sample, were sent to family practitioners. The practitioners were asked to evaluate each report for clarity and the certainty of the radiologists about their findings. There was a strong negative correlation between readability and average clarity (r = -0.63, P less than .001) and readability and average certainty (r = -0.58, P less than .001). Thus, the results of this study suggest that there are differences in the linguistic complexity of radiographic reports, as measured by the readability index, among individual radiologists and different modalities. The survey data indicate that reports containing lengthy, complex sentences are viewed negatively by family practitioners and may impede effective communication between radiologists and clinicians.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗

Use of mammography in screening for breast cancer.

Recognizing the enormous impact that quality breast screening mammography can have on reducing breast cancer deaths, we need to determine when women's and physician's perceived restrictions for mammography examination impede the progress of its use for early cancer detection. A uniform system should emphasize valid communication and education between women and their physicians. Women seek to have a voice in their medical treatment. Yet that responsibility has an emotional price. Physicians and patients must decide together on the most appropriate strategies to enhance communication and adopt specific guidelines they will adhere to, to detect and cure early breast cancer. Women must be educated about breast screening mammography, and physicians must increase their efforts to proclaim its importance. Women need be assured the trend is toward using the most modern mammographic techniques. Quality medical care is medicine's purpose and in women's best interest. At present, no other diagnostic method is equivalent to mammography and capable of providing an equivalent impact on improving the detection and cure rate of breast cancer. Despite medical activities designed to reduce uncertainty in medicine, scientific evidence has not provided systematic answers as to the "best" way to approach issues of quality, cost, accessibility, or communication for breast screening mammography. No particular expert opinion or preference prevails for breast screening protocols. What is needed is adoption of a multidisciplinary approach, educating and motivating women and physicians to participate in breast screening activities. With trends directed toward high-volume breast screening operations, low-cost, quality mammography must be available and be impeccably performed. Some activities are natural subjects for financial quantification. It is objectionable to assume, however, that we can accurately place and agree on dollar amounts alone to represent the costs and benefits of screening mammography. The gaps between practices and attitudes about the benefits, risks, and costs of screening mammography suggest that people are not satisfied with the way physicians, women, influential groups, or regulatory agencies are balancing all of the elements. Better communication must exist between physicians and their peer groups involved in performing responsible mammography. Better communication must be achieved between physicians and women to take advantage of the usefulness of quality breast screening mammography. High-quality screening programs must be linked to third-party reimbursement and to legislation, if we are to make a difference. Screening mammography deserves our medical, economic, social, and political attention and action.

Adult↗

The detection and cure of breast cancer.

The appropriate use of screening mammography can significantly decrease deaths from breast cancer. Physicians and patients must become more vigilant in using available diagnostic modalities if we are to improve upon the survival of patients with breast cancer.

Biopsy↗

Value judgements in diagnostic radiology: How do we decide?

Value judgements now determine, to a great extent, whether or not the utility of a component of a procedure justifies the cost, in terms of exposure to radiation and financial expenditures. Medical education may ingrain behaviors that emphasize performing procedures that do not justify their costs.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗