ArticleInsights into imaging2010
Clinicians' justification of imaging: do radiation issues play a role?
Article in Insights into imaging, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of clinical decision rules, patient cost and malpractice information on clinician brain CT image ordering: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2018Trial
- Knowledge and perceptions of ionising radiation among Croatian general practitioners: is there cause for concern?Arhiv za higijenu rada i toksikologiju · 2025Article
- Assessing context and readiness of emergency medicine physicians to promote evidence-based imaging referral guidelines: a mixed-methods study.Translational behavioral medicine · 2025Article
- Awareness of radiation risks by medical students & referrers requesting radiological examinations in the North of Scotland: an audit.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- National audit on the appropriateness of CT and MRI examinations in Luxembourg.Insights into imaging · 2019Article
- Computed tomography use in a large Italian region: trend analysis 2004-2014 of emergency and outpatient CT examinations in children and adults.European radiology · 2018Article
- Awareness of radiation risks from CT scans among patients and providers and obstacles for informed decision-making.Emergency radiology · 2018Article
- Awareness and knowledge of radiation dose and associated risks among final year medical students in Norway.Insights into imaging · 2017Article
- Knowledge on Irradiation, Medical Imaging Prescriptions, and Clinical Imaging Referral Guidelines among Physicians in a Sub-Saharan African Country (Cameroon).Radiology research and practice · 2017Article
- Evidence-based practice, research utilization, and knowledge translation in chiropractic: a scoping review.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2016Article
- Patient Dose Management: Focus on Practical Actions.Journal of Korean medical science · 2016Review
- Radiation awareness among radiology residents, technologists, fellows and staff: where do we stand?Insights into imaging · 2015Article
- Radiation knowledge and perception of referral practice among radiologists and radiographers compared with referring clinicians.Insights into imaging · 2014Article
- Event-based versus process-based informed consent to address scientific evidence and uncertainties in ionising medical imaging.Insights into imaging · 2013Article
- Article
- Evaluation of non-radiologist physicians' knowledge on aspects related to ionizing radiation in imaging.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
- A prospective study assessing clinicians attitude and knowledge on radiation exposure to patients during radiological investigations.Journal of natural science, biology, and medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore clinicians' knowledge and consideration of radiation, in relation to their referral practice and use of referral guidelines for imaging.
methodsA questionnaire was handed out to 213 clinicians in Norway; all responded: 77 general practitioners, 71 hospital physicians and 65 non-physicians (55 manual physiotherapists, 10 chiropractors). Questions concerned weighting of radiation dose, guideline use, referrals unlikely to affect treatment, doses from imaging procedures, ranking of imaging as radiation source, and deterministic and stochastic effects. For radiation knowledge, a total score was aggregated.
resultsThe mean radiation knowledge score was 30.4/71. Most respondents underestimated doses from high-dose imaging, e.g., barium enema (94.7%), chest CT (57.7%) and abdominal CT (52.7%). Limited radiation knowledge was not compensated by using guidelines. Only 20% of physicians and 72% of non-physicians used referral guidelines. Non-physicians weighted radiation dose as being more important than physicians when referring; they also reported fewer referrals as being unlikely to affect treatment. Such referrals and not using guidelines were related to lower weighting of radiation dose but not to radiation knowledge.
conclusionLimited radiation knowledge and guideline use indicate suboptimal justification of referrals. When justifying imaging, weighting of radiation dose may play a larger role than detailed radiation knowledge.
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.