Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21076904›Full record

ArticleDer Radiologe2010

[Radiation hygiene in medical X-ray imaging. Part 3: radiation exposure of patients and risk assessment].

E A Nekolla, J Griebel, G Brix

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Radiologe, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
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.

E A NekollaAbteilung für Medizinischen und Beruflichen Strahlenschutz, Fachbereich Strahlenschutz und Gesundheit, Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, Ingolstädter Landstr. 1, 85764 Neuherberg, Deutschland. ENekolla@bfs.de
J Griebel
G Brix

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The frequency of X-ray examinations in Germany and the resulting radiation exposure is amongst the highest in comparison with other European countries. To reduce medical radiation exposure and to safeguard radiation protection regulations, the X-ray ordinance stipulates a justification of each individual X-ray application. The justification principle means that the X-ray application should produce sufficient health benefit to offset the radiation risk. Such a benefit-risk assessment needs an adequate estimation of radiation risk. The aim of this paper is to explain the principles of benefit-risk assessment for different situations (e.g. healthcare and screening). The basics and concepts of radiation effects and radiation epidemiology as well as examples of risk estimation and benefit-risk assessments are given.

Indexed as

Body BurdenGermanyHumansMass ScreeningNational Health ProgramsRadiation DosageRadiation InjuriesRadiation MonitoringRadiation ProtectionRadiographyRisk Assessment

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.