ReviewExpert review of cardiovascular therapy2011
Radiation exposure from imaging tests: is there an increased cancer risk?
Review in Expert review of cardiovascular therapy, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
30 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimization of X-ray acquisition parameters for reduced radiation exposure while maintaining 2D-DSA image quality during lower limb angioplasty.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Local Diagnostic Reference Levels for Intracranial Aneurysm Coil-Only Embolization Using a Low-Dose Technique.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- MRI as an alternative to CT after inconclusive ultrasound in subacute/acute abdominal pain in young women: a prospective multicenter noninferiority study.European radiology · 2025Article
- An Exploratory Analysis of Public Perspectives and Attitudes Towards Radiation in Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Translational approaches for radiation protection: treating patients, not their images.European radiology · 2025Article
- Assessment of Public Knowledge and Perceptions Toward Radiation Exposure Risks in Saudi Arabia: A Survey Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Cardiovascular Imaging in the Era of Precision Medicine: Insights from Advanced Technologies - A Narrative Review.Health science reports · 2024Article
- The effect of breast shielding outside the field of view on breast entrance surface dose in axial X-ray examinations: a phantom study.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2023Article
- Principles and applications of magnetic nanomaterials in magnetically guided bioimaging.Materials today physics · 2023Article
- Article
- Are we aware of radiation: A study about necessity of diagnostic X-ray exposure.World journal of methodology · 2022Article
- An evaluation of DNA double strand break formation and excreted guanine species post whole body PET/CT procedure.Journal of radiation research · 2021Article
- Coronary Flow and Reserve by Enhanced Transthoracic Doppler Trumps Coronary Anatomy by Computed Tomography in Assessing Coronary Artery Stenosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- A review on medical imaging synthesis using deep learning and its clinical applications.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2021Review
- Article
- Deep learning-based image quality improvement for low-dose computed tomography simulation in radiation therapy.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2019Article
- Evaluation of image quality and radiation dose saving comparing knowledge model-based iterative reconstruction on 80-kV CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) with hybrid iterative reconstruction on 100-kV CT.Emergency radiology · 2019Article
- Genetic Testing to Guide Risk-Stratified Screens for Breast Cancer.Journal of personalized medicine · 2019Review
- Striking a balance in the discussion of the benefits of imaging tests and risks of radiation exposure.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2019Article
- Radiolabeled Duramycin: Promising Translational Imaging of Myocardial Apoptosis.JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The increasing exposure to low-dose radiation from diagnostic testing has prompted renewed interest in evaluating its carcinogenic risk, but quantifying health risk from low-dose radiation exposure remains controversial. The current approach is to adopt the linear non-threshold model, which is commonly applied to high-dose exposure, and apply it to assess risk from low-dose exposure. However, existing data are conflicting and limited to epidemiological studies and/or in vitro analyses. In this article, we will discuss the potential cancer risk from low- and high-dose radiation, their effects on DNA repair response pathways, and the best course of action for patients and providers to minimize risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.