Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15776265›Full record

ReviewDer Radiologe2005

[Radiation exposure of patients from diagnostic and interventional X-ray procedures. Facts, assessment and trends].

G Brix, E Nekolla, J Griebel

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Radiologe, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Clinical consequence of the 4-week X-ray control after ESIN osteosynthesis of forearm fractures in children.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Ultrasound diagnosis of supracondylar fractures in children.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2014
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Radiation protection in pediatric radiology.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2011
    Article
  11. Radiation protection in diagnostic radiology.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2008
    Article
  12. Heavy metal pad shielding during fluoroscopic interventions.Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2006
    Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

G BrixAbteilung für Medizinische Strahlenhygiene und Dosimetrie, Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz Neuherberg. gbrix@bfs.de
E Nekolla
J Griebel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Man-made radiation exposure to the German population predominantly results from the medical use of ionizing radiation. According to the most recent evaluation, the mean effective dose per inhabitant and year from X-ray procedures increased from 1.6 to 1.8 mSv between 1996 and 2001. This rise is mainly caused by the expanding use of CT and reflects the growing importance of this imaging modality. Besides actual data on the frequency and dose of various types of X-ray examinations, patient-specific factors will be highlighted which have to be considered in the assessment of the associated individual and collective radiation risk. Moreover, different concepts to reduce radiation exposure of patients will be discussed as well as some current trends in health service that may affect radiation hygiene -- such as diagnosis-related groups for inpatients and CT screening.

Indexed as

Body BurdenHumansInternationalityRadiation DosageRadiation InjuriesRadiation ProtectionRadiographyRelative Biological EffectivenessRisk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.