Reactions to uncertainty and the accuracy of diagnostic mammography

Patricia A. Carney, Joyce P. Yi, Linn A. Abraham, Diana L Miglioretti, Erin J. Aiello, Martha S. Gerrity, Lisa Reisch, Eric A. Berns, Edward A. Sickles, Joann G. Elmore

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Reactions to uncertainty in clinical medicine can affect decision making. OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which radiologists' reactions to uncertainty influence diagnostic mammography interpretation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional responses to a mailed survey assessed reactions to uncertainty using a well-validated instrument. Responses were linked to radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretive performance obtained from three regional mammography registries. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-two radiologists from New Hampshire, Colorado, and Washington. MEASUREMENT: Mean scores and either standard errors or confidence intervals were used to assess physicians' reactions to uncertainty. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit via generalized estimating equations to assess the impact of uncertainty on diagnostic mammography interpretive performance while adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: When examining radiologists' interpretation of additional diagnostic mammograms (those after screening mammograms that detected abnormalities), a 5-point increase in the reactions to uncertainty score was associated with a 17% higher odds of having a positive mammogram given cancer was diagnosed during follow-up (sensitivity), a 6% lower odds of a negative mammogram given no cancer (specificity), a 4% lower odds (not significant) of a cancer diagnosis given a positive mammogram (positive predictive value [PPV]), and a 5% higher odds of having a positive mammogram (abnormal interpretation). CONCLUSION: Mammograms interpreted by radiologists who have more discomfort with uncertainty have higher likelihood of being recalled.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)234-241
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine
Volume22
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Mammography
Uncertainty
Logistic Models
Neoplasms
Clinical Medicine
Registries
Decision Making
Radiologists
Confidence Intervals
Physicians

Keywords

  • Breast cancer screening
  • Mammography
  • Medical malpractice
  • Physician uncertainty

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Carney, P. A., Yi, J. P., Abraham, L. A., Miglioretti, D. L., Aiello, E. J., Gerrity, M. S., ... Elmore, J. G. (2007). Reactions to uncertainty and the accuracy of diagnostic mammography. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(2), 234-241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-006-0036-9

Reactions to uncertainty and the accuracy of diagnostic mammography. / Carney, Patricia A.; Yi, Joyce P.; Abraham, Linn A.; Miglioretti, Diana L; Aiello, Erin J.; Gerrity, Martha S.; Reisch, Lisa; Berns, Eric A.; Sickles, Edward A.; Elmore, Joann G.

In: Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 2, 02.2007, p. 234-241.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Carney, PA, Yi, JP, Abraham, LA, Miglioretti, DL, Aiello, EJ, Gerrity, MS, Reisch, L, Berns, EA, Sickles, EA & Elmore, JG 2007, 'Reactions to uncertainty and the accuracy of diagnostic mammography', Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 234-241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-006-0036-9
Carney, Patricia A. ; Yi, Joyce P. ; Abraham, Linn A. ; Miglioretti, Diana L ; Aiello, Erin J. ; Gerrity, Martha S. ; Reisch, Lisa ; Berns, Eric A. ; Sickles, Edward A. ; Elmore, Joann G. / Reactions to uncertainty and the accuracy of diagnostic mammography. In: Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2007 ; Vol. 22, No. 2. pp. 234-241.
@article{3a3e269c887d405fbae0bd31f8edac1c,
title = "Reactions to uncertainty and the accuracy of diagnostic mammography",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Reactions to uncertainty in clinical medicine can affect decision making. OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which radiologists' reactions to uncertainty influence diagnostic mammography interpretation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional responses to a mailed survey assessed reactions to uncertainty using a well-validated instrument. Responses were linked to radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretive performance obtained from three regional mammography registries. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-two radiologists from New Hampshire, Colorado, and Washington. MEASUREMENT: Mean scores and either standard errors or confidence intervals were used to assess physicians' reactions to uncertainty. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit via generalized estimating equations to assess the impact of uncertainty on diagnostic mammography interpretive performance while adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: When examining radiologists' interpretation of additional diagnostic mammograms (those after screening mammograms that detected abnormalities), a 5-point increase in the reactions to uncertainty score was associated with a 17{\%} higher odds of having a positive mammogram given cancer was diagnosed during follow-up (sensitivity), a 6{\%} lower odds of a negative mammogram given no cancer (specificity), a 4{\%} lower odds (not significant) of a cancer diagnosis given a positive mammogram (positive predictive value [PPV]), and a 5{\%} higher odds of having a positive mammogram (abnormal interpretation). CONCLUSION: Mammograms interpreted by radiologists who have more discomfort with uncertainty have higher likelihood of being recalled.",
keywords = "Breast cancer screening, Mammography, Medical malpractice, Physician uncertainty",
author = "Carney, {Patricia A.} and Yi, {Joyce P.} and Abraham, {Linn A.} and Miglioretti, {Diana L} and Aiello, {Erin J.} and Gerrity, {Martha S.} and Lisa Reisch and Berns, {Eric A.} and Sickles, {Edward A.} and Elmore, {Joann G.}",
year = "2007",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1007/s11606-006-0036-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "234--241",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reactions to uncertainty and the accuracy of diagnostic mammography

AU - Carney, Patricia A.

AU - Yi, Joyce P.

AU - Abraham, Linn A.

AU - Miglioretti, Diana L

AU - Aiello, Erin J.

AU - Gerrity, Martha S.

AU - Reisch, Lisa

AU - Berns, Eric A.

AU - Sickles, Edward A.

AU - Elmore, Joann G.

PY - 2007/2

Y1 - 2007/2

N2 - BACKGROUND: Reactions to uncertainty in clinical medicine can affect decision making. OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which radiologists' reactions to uncertainty influence diagnostic mammography interpretation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional responses to a mailed survey assessed reactions to uncertainty using a well-validated instrument. Responses were linked to radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretive performance obtained from three regional mammography registries. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-two radiologists from New Hampshire, Colorado, and Washington. MEASUREMENT: Mean scores and either standard errors or confidence intervals were used to assess physicians' reactions to uncertainty. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit via generalized estimating equations to assess the impact of uncertainty on diagnostic mammography interpretive performance while adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: When examining radiologists' interpretation of additional diagnostic mammograms (those after screening mammograms that detected abnormalities), a 5-point increase in the reactions to uncertainty score was associated with a 17% higher odds of having a positive mammogram given cancer was diagnosed during follow-up (sensitivity), a 6% lower odds of a negative mammogram given no cancer (specificity), a 4% lower odds (not significant) of a cancer diagnosis given a positive mammogram (positive predictive value [PPV]), and a 5% higher odds of having a positive mammogram (abnormal interpretation). CONCLUSION: Mammograms interpreted by radiologists who have more discomfort with uncertainty have higher likelihood of being recalled.

AB - BACKGROUND: Reactions to uncertainty in clinical medicine can affect decision making. OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which radiologists' reactions to uncertainty influence diagnostic mammography interpretation. DESIGN: Cross-sectional responses to a mailed survey assessed reactions to uncertainty using a well-validated instrument. Responses were linked to radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretive performance obtained from three regional mammography registries. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred thirty-two radiologists from New Hampshire, Colorado, and Washington. MEASUREMENT: Mean scores and either standard errors or confidence intervals were used to assess physicians' reactions to uncertainty. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit via generalized estimating equations to assess the impact of uncertainty on diagnostic mammography interpretive performance while adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: When examining radiologists' interpretation of additional diagnostic mammograms (those after screening mammograms that detected abnormalities), a 5-point increase in the reactions to uncertainty score was associated with a 17% higher odds of having a positive mammogram given cancer was diagnosed during follow-up (sensitivity), a 6% lower odds of a negative mammogram given no cancer (specificity), a 4% lower odds (not significant) of a cancer diagnosis given a positive mammogram (positive predictive value [PPV]), and a 5% higher odds of having a positive mammogram (abnormal interpretation). CONCLUSION: Mammograms interpreted by radiologists who have more discomfort with uncertainty have higher likelihood of being recalled.

KW - Breast cancer screening

KW - Mammography

KW - Medical malpractice

KW - Physician uncertainty

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34250315345&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34250315345&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11606-006-0036-9

DO - 10.1007/s11606-006-0036-9

M3 - Article

C2 - 17356992

AN - SCOPUS:34250315345

VL - 22

SP - 234

EP - 241

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

IS - 2

ER -