Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Conway, B. J.
Right arrow Articles by Slayton, R. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Conway, B. J.
Right arrow Articles by Slayton, R. J.

Radiology, Vol 191, 323-330, Copyright © 1994 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

National survey of mammographic facilities in 1985, 1988, and 1992

BJ Conway, OH Suleiman, FG Rueter, RG Antonsen and RJ Slayton
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Rockville, MD 20857.

PURPOSE: To determine trends in mammography in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sample of mammographic facilities was selected for each year of the Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends. The same protocol was followed for the 1985, 1988, and 1992 surveys. Data were collected with use of the same imaging phantom for all three surveys and also with a different phantom in the 1988 and 1992 surveys. RESULTS: Of the 356 facilities surveyed in 1992, 59% claimed to be in compliance with the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) mammography requirements, 42% were accredited by the American College of Radiology (ACR), and 23% did not hold credentials from either the HCFA or the ACR. Since 1985, there has been a 34% improvement in acceptable phantom image quality score and a 20% decrease in the mean glandular dose. CONCLUSION: Mammography as practiced today is essentially a screen-film technique. Mammographic phantom image quality has improved considerably. The overall mean glandular dose has decreased primarily because of the elimination of xeroradiography.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadiologyHome page
F. A. Mettler Jr, W. Huda, T. T. Yoshizumi, and M. Mahesh
Effective Doses in Radiology and Diagnostic Nuclear Medicine: A Catalog
Radiology, July 1, 2008; 248(1): 254 - 263.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
E L Nickoloff and P O Alderson
A comparative study of thoracic radiation doses from 64-slice cardiac CT
Br. J. Radiol., July 1, 2007; 80(955): 537 - 544.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
D. C. Spelic, R. V. Kaczmarek, and O. H. Suleiman
Nationwide Evaluation of X-ray Trends Survey of Abdomen and Lumbosacral Spine Radiography
Radiology, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 115 - 125.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
O. H. Suleiman, D. C. Spelic, J. L. McCrohan, G. R. Symonds, and F. Houn
Mammography in the 1990s: The United States and Canada
Radiology, February 1, 1999; 210(2): 345 - 351.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1994 by the Radiological Society of North America.