Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 2/2007

01-02-2007 | Original Article

Reactions to Uncertainty and the Accuracy of Diagnostic Mammography

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

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 2/2007

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Elmore J, Wells C, Lee C, Howard D, Feinstein A. Variability in radiologists’ interpretations of mammograms. New Engl J Med. 1994;331(22):1493–99.PubMedCrossRef Elmore J, Wells C, Lee C, Howard D, Feinstein A. Variability in radiologists’ interpretations of mammograms. New Engl J Med. 1994;331(22):1493–99.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:209–13.PubMedCrossRef Beam CA, Layde PM, Sullivan DC. Variability in the interpretation of screening mammograms by US radiologists. Arch Intern Med. 1996;156:209–13.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference 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;165:1373–77.PubMed 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;165:1373–77.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Factors affecting radiologist inconsistency in screening mammography. Acad Radiol. 2002;9:531–40.PubMedCrossRef Beam CA, Conant EF, Sickles EA. Factors affecting radiologist inconsistency in screening mammography. Acad Radiol. 2002;9:531–40.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Poplack SP, Tosteson AN, Grove M, Wells WA, Carney PA. The practice of mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire Mammography Network. Radiology. 2000;217:832–40.PubMed Poplack SP, Tosteson AN, Grove M, Wells WA, Carney PA. The practice of mammography in 53,803 women from the New Hampshire Mammography Network. Radiology. 2000;217:832–40.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Barlow WE, Lehman CD, Zheng Y, et al. Performance of diagnostic mammography for women with breast signs or symptoms of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1151–9.PubMed Barlow WE, Lehman CD, Zheng Y, et al. Performance of diagnostic mammography for women with breast signs or symptoms of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1151–9.PubMed
7.
go back to reference Yankaskas BC, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, et al. Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the US. Radiology. 2005;234(2):363–73.PubMedCrossRef Yankaskas BC, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, et al. Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the US. Radiology. 2005;234(2):363–73.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Geller B, et al. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a family history of breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:855–63.PubMed Kerlikowske K, Carney PA, Geller B, et al. Performance of screening mammography among women with and without a family history of breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2000;133:855–63.PubMed
9.
go back to reference Barlow WE, Chi chen, Carney PA, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(24):1840–50.PubMedCrossRef Barlow WE, Chi chen, Carney PA, et al. Accuracy of screening mammography interpretation by characteristics of radiologists. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(24):1840–50.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(5):358–67.PubMed Smith-Bindman R, Chu P, Miglioretti DL, et al. Physician predictors of mammographic accuracy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(5):358–67.PubMed
11.
go back to reference Physicians Insurers Association of America Data Sharing Committee. Cumulative Reports, January 1st, 1985-June 30, 1996. Rockville: Physicians Insurers Association of America; 1996. Physicians Insurers Association of America Data Sharing Committee. Cumulative Reports, January 1st, 1985-June 30, 1996. Rockville: Physicians Insurers Association of America; 1996.
12.
go back to reference Allison JJ, Kiefe CI, Cook EF, Gerrity MS, Orav EJ, Centor R. The association of physician attitudes about uncertainty and risk taking with resource use in a Medicare HMO. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18(3):320–29.CrossRef Allison JJ, Kiefe CI, Cook EF, Gerrity MS, Orav EJ, Centor R. The association of physician attitudes about uncertainty and risk taking with resource use in a Medicare HMO. Med Decis Mak. 1998;18(3):320–29.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Carney PA, Elmore JG, Abraham LA, et al. Radiologist uncertainty and the interpretation of screening mammography. Med Decis Mak. 2004;24(3):255–64.CrossRef Carney PA, Elmore JG, Abraham LA, et al. Radiologist uncertainty and the interpretation of screening mammography. Med Decis Mak. 2004;24(3):255–64.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of breast density, age, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(3):168–75.PubMed Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, et al. Individual and combined effects of breast density, age, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(3):168–75.PubMed
15.
go back to reference Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash B, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology. 2005;235(3):775–90.PubMedCrossRef Sickles EA, Miglioretti DL, Ballard-Barbash B, et al. Performance benchmarks for diagnostic mammography. Radiology. 2005;235(3):775–90.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Gerrity MS, DeVellis RF, Earp J. Physicians’ reactions to uncertainty in patient care. Med Care. 1990;28(8):724–36.PubMedCrossRef Gerrity MS, DeVellis RF, Earp J. Physicians’ reactions to uncertainty in patient care. Med Care. 1990;28(8):724–36.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Gerrity MS, White KP, DeVellis RF, Dittus. Physicians’ reactions to uncertainty: refining the constructs and scales. Motiv Emot. 1995;19(3):175–91.CrossRef Gerrity MS, White KP, DeVellis RF, Dittus. Physicians’ reactions to uncertainty: refining the constructs and scales. Motiv Emot. 1995;19(3):175–91.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Carney PA, Poplack SP, Wells WA, Littenberg B. Development and design of a population-based mammography registry: the New Hampshire Mammography Network. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167(Aug):367–72.PubMed Carney PA, Poplack SP, Wells WA, Littenberg B. Development and design of a population-based mammography registry: the New Hampshire Mammography Network. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;167(Aug):367–72.PubMed
19.
go back to reference Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:1001–08.PubMed Ballard-Barbash R, Taplin SH, Yankaskas BC, et al. Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium: a national mammography screening and outcomes database. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169:1001–08.PubMed
20.
go back to reference Carney PA, Geller BM, Moffett H, et al. Current medico-legal and confidentiality issues in large multi-center research programs. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;152(4):371–8.PubMedCrossRef Carney PA, Geller BM, Moffett H, et al. Current medico-legal and confidentiality issues in large multi-center research programs. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;152(4):371–8.PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Feig SA, et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system, 3rd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 1998. D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Feig SA, et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system, 3rd ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 1998.
22.
go back to reference SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 8. Cary NC: SAS Institute Inc; 1999 SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT user’s guide, version 8. Cary NC: SAS Institute Inc; 1999
23.
go back to reference Liang, K-Y, Zeger, SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73(1):13–22.CrossRef Liang, K-Y, Zeger, SL. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika. 1986;73(1):13–22.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Poplack SP, Carney PA, Weiss JE, Titus-Ernstoff L, Goodrich ME, Tosteson ANA. Screening mammography: costs and screening-related services. Radiology. 2005;234:79–85PubMedCrossRef Poplack SP, Carney PA, Weiss JE, Titus-Ernstoff L, Goodrich ME, Tosteson ANA. Screening mammography: costs and screening-related services. Radiology. 2005;234:79–85PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Lerman C, Rimer BK, Jepson C, Brody D, Boyce A. Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. Health Psychol. 1991;10(4):259–26.PubMedCrossRef Lerman C, Rimer BK, Jepson C, Brody D, Boyce A. Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. Health Psychol. 1991;10(4):259–26.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, Boyce A, Jepson C, Engstrom PF. Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114(8):657–61.PubMed Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK, Boyce A, Jepson C, Engstrom PF. Psychological and behavioral implications of abnormal mammograms. Ann Intern Med. 1991;114(8):657–61.PubMed
27.
go back to reference Gram IT, Lund E, Slenker SE. Quality of life following a false positive mammogram. Br J Cancer. 1990;62:1018–22.PubMed Gram IT, Lund E, Slenker SE. Quality of life following a false positive mammogram. Br J Cancer. 1990;62:1018–22.PubMed
28.
go back to reference Egger JR, Cutter GR, Carney PA, et al. Mammographers’ perception of women’s breast cancer risk. Med Decis Mak. 2005;25:283–9.CrossRef Egger JR, Cutter GR, Carney PA, et al. Mammographers’ perception of women’s breast cancer risk. Med Decis Mak. 2005;25:283–9.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference D’Orsi C, Tu SP, Nakano C, et al. The current realities of delivering mammography in the community: do challenges with staffing and scheduling exist? Radiology. 2005;235:391–5.PubMedCrossRef D’Orsi C, Tu SP, Nakano C, et al. The current realities of delivering mammography in the community: do challenges with staffing and scheduling exist? Radiology. 2005;235:391–5.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Wittenberg KJ, Norcross JC. Practitioner perfectionism: relationship to ambiguity tolerance and work satisfaction. J Clin Psychol. 2001;57(12):1543–50.PubMedCrossRef Wittenberg KJ, Norcross JC. Practitioner perfectionism: relationship to ambiguity tolerance and work satisfaction. J Clin Psychol. 2001;57(12):1543–50.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Linzer M, Gerrity M, Douglas JA, McMurray JE, Williams ES, Konrad TR. Physician stress results from the physician worklife study. Stress Health. 2002;18:37–42.CrossRef Linzer M, Gerrity M, Douglas JA, McMurray JE, Williams ES, Konrad TR. Physician stress results from the physician worklife study. Stress Health. 2002;18:37–42.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Nass S, Ball J (Eds). Improving breast Imaging Quality Standards. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Washington DC: The National Academies Press; 2005. Nass S, Ball J (Eds). Improving breast Imaging Quality Standards. Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. Washington DC: The National Academies Press; 2005.
Metadata
Title
Reactions to Uncertainty and the Accuracy of Diagnostic Mammography
Authors
Patricia A. Carney, PhD
Joyce P. Yi, MS, PhC
Linn A. Abraham, MS
Diana L. Miglioretti, PhD
Erin J. Aiello, MPH
Martha S. Gerrity, MD, PhD
Lisa Reisch, PhD
Eric A. Berns, PhD
Edward A. Sickles, MD
Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH
Publication date
01-02-2007
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 2/2007
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-006-0036-9

Other articles of this Issue 2/2007

Journal of General Internal Medicine 2/2007 Go to the issue
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.