Challenges With Identifying Indication for Examination in Breast Imaging as a Key Clinical Attribute in Practice, Research, and Policy.
Purpose: To assess indication for examination for four breast imaging modalities and describe the complexity and heterogeneity of data sources and ascertainment methods.Methods: Indication was evaluated among the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) b...
| Publicado en: | Journal of the American College of Radiology Vol. 14; no. 2; pp. 198 - 199 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Formato: | research Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Elsevier B.V.
Feb2017
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=120889486&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 120889486 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 15461440 EAO jtl: Journal of the American College of Radiology issn: 15461440 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Feb2017 vid: 14 iid: 2 pid: 467 pub: Elsevier B.V. place: New York, New York artinfo: ui: 120889486 120889486 NLM27744009 120889486 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.08.017 NLM27744009 120889486 ppf: 198 ppct: 1 formats: tig: atl: Challenges With Identifying Indication for Examination in Breast Imaging as a Key Clinical Attribute in Practice, Research, and Policy. aug: au: Weiss, Julie E. Goodrich, Martha Harris, Kimberly A. Chicoine, Rachael E. Synnestvedt, Marie B. Pyle, Steve J. Chen, Jane S. Herschorn, Sally D. Beaber, Elisabeth F. Haas, Jennifer S. Tosteson, Anna N.A. Onega, Tracy affil: Department of Biomedical Data Science, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire sug: subj: Mammography Statistics and Numerical Data Early Detection of Cancer Standards Mammography Standards Early Detection of Cancer Statistics and Numerical Data Breast Neoplasms Practice Guidelines Early Detection of Cancer Methods Reproducibility of Results Breast Neoplasms Epidemiology Guideline Adherence Utilization United States Female Sensitivity and Specificity Mammography Methods Validation Studies Comparative Studies Evaluation Research Multicenter Studies Human Funding Source Female ab: Purpose: To assess indication for examination for four breast imaging modalities and describe the complexity and heterogeneity of data sources and ascertainment methods.Methods: Indication was evaluated among the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) breast cancer research centers (PRCs). Indication data were reported overall and separately for four breast imaging modalities: digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Results: The breast PRCs contributed 236,262 women with 607,735 breast imaging records from 31 radiology facilities. We found a high degree of heterogeneity for indication within and across six data sources. Structured codes within a data source were used most often to identify indication for mammography (59% DM, 85% DBT) and text analytics for US (45%) and MRI (44%). Indication could not be identified for 17% of US and 26% of MRI compared with 2% of mammography examinations (1% DM, 3% DBT).Conclusions: Multiple and diverse data sources, heterogeneity of ascertainment methods, and nonstandardization of codes within and across data systems for determining indication were found. Consideration of data sources and standardized methodology for determining indication is needed to assure accurate measurement of cancer screening rates and performance in clinical practice and research. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: research Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|