What is the optimal annual interpretive volume for a radiologist reading screening mammograms?

Ulutürk, A.; Pylkkänen, Liisa; Deandrea, Silvia; Bramesfeld, Anke; Neamţiu, Luciana; Parkinson, Zuleika Saz; Ambrosio, Maria Raffaella; Donata, Lerda

doi:10.1093/annonc/mdw385.10

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many studies have demonstrated fellowship trained radiologists can provide significant added value to clinical care [3,[5][6][7][8]. Furthermore, there is an association between higher interpretive volume and better performance metrics of mammographers [11][12][13]. With this knowledge, it is appropriate to ask whether complex diagnostic studies, such as neurological MRI and musculoskeletal MRI, are interpreted by radiologists, who are positioned to contribute the most value to patient care.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specialization within radiology can take the form of either advanced training, or a increased focus or volume of one's work within a subfield. Both of these forms of specialization have been shown to result in increased diagnostic performance [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. While the value of specialization has been demonstrated across a variety of radiology subfields, including musculoskeletal, neurologic, abdominopelvic, thoracic, and breast imaging, the greatest impact has been largely for more complex imaging tasks, such as MRI or oncologic imaging.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Low-Volume and High-Volume Readers of Neurological and Musculoskeletal MRI: Achieving Subspecialization in Radiology

Trinh

Calabrese

et al. 2020

Journal of the American College of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Differentiate high versus low-volume radiologists who interpret neurological(Neuro) MRI or musculoskeletal(MSK) MRI, and measure the proportion of Neuro/MSK MRI read by low-volume radiologists. Methods: We queried the 2015 Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File for radiologists who submitted claims for Neuro or MSK MRI. Radiologists were classified as high-volume versus low-volume based on their work RVU(wRVU) focus and/or volume of studies interpreted using three different methodologies: (Method1) percentage of wRVU in Neuro/MSK MRI, (Method2) absolute number of Neuro/MSK MRI interpreted, and (Method3) both percentage and absolute number. Multiple thresholds with each methodology were tested, and the percent of Neuro/MSK MRI interpreted by low-volume radiologists was calculated for each threshold. Results: For Neuro(MSK) MRI 33%(50%) of studies were interpreted by a radiologist whose wRVU in Neuro/MSK MRI is less than 20% (Method1). With Method2, 22%(37%) of Neuro(MSK) MRI was interpreted by radiologists who read fewer than the mean number of Neuro/MSK MRI interpreted by an "average fulltime radiologist" whose wRVU in Neuro/MSK MRI is approximately 20%. With 1 Method3, 38%(57%) of Neuro(MSK) MRI was interpreted by "low-volume" radiologists. If instead, 50% wRVU threshold is used for Methods 1/2/3, 70%/ 58%/77% (86%/80%/90%) of Neuro(MSK) MRI is read by low-volume radiologists. Discussion: A large number of radiologists read a low volume of Neuro or MSK MRI; these low-volume Neuro/MSK MRI radiologists read a substantial portion of Neuro/MSK MRI. It is unknown which of the methods for distinguishing lowvolume radiologists, combined with which threshold may best correlate with high performing or low-performing radiologists.

show abstract