ArticleAJR. American journal of roentgenology2013
Journal club: How radiation exposure histories influence physician imaging decisions: a multicenter radiologist survey study.
Article in AJR. American journal of roentgenology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Second primary cancer risk and survival in prostate cancer patients: A nationwide analysis.Prostate international · 2025Article
- Expert panel on monitoring radiation doses from recurrent medical diagnostic procedures: Sixth Gilbert W. Beebe Webinar.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Review
- Effects of ionizing radiation exposure during pregnancy.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- The cumulative radiation dose paradigm in pediatric imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- A Decision Analysis of Follow-up and Treatment Algorithms for Nonsolid Pulmonary Nodules.Radiology · 2019Article
- Avoiding fears and promoting shared decision-making: How should physicians inform patients about radiation exposure from imaging tests?PloS one · 2017Article
- The communication of the radiation risk from CT in relation to its clinical benefit in the era of personalized medicine: part 2: benefits versus risk of CT.Pediatric radiology · 2014Article
- From 'Image Gently' to image intelligently: a personalized perspective on diagnostic radiation risk.Pediatric radiology · 2014Review
- Prioritizing examination-centered over patient-centered dose reduction: a hazard of institutional "benchmarking".AJR. American journal of roentgenology · 2014Article
- Current knowledge on tumour induction by computed tomography should be carefully used.European radiology · 2014Review
- Are Continued Efforts to Reduce Radiation Exposures from X-Rays Warranted?Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- X-Ray Hesitancy: Patients' Radiophobic Concerns Over Medical X-rays.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Death of the ALARA Radiation Protection Principle as Used in the Medical Sector.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this article is to evaluate the influence of patient radiation exposure histories on radiologists' imaging decisions. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe conducted a physician survey study in three academic medical centers. Radiologists were asked to make an imaging recommendation for a hypothetical patient with a history of multiple CT scans. We queried radiologists' decision making, evaluating whether they incorporated cancer risks from previous imaging, reported acceptance (or rejection) of the linear no-threshold model, and understood linear no-threshold model implications in this setting. Consistency between radiologists' decisions and their linear no-threshold model beliefs was evaluated; those acting in accordance with the linear no-threshold model were expected to disregard previously incurred cancer risks. A Fisher exact test was used to verify the generalizability of results across institutions and training levels (residents, fellows, and attending physicians).
resultsFifty-six percent (322/578) of radiologists completed the survey. Most (92% [295/322]) incorporated risks from the patient's exposure history during decision making. Most (61% [196/322]) also reported acceptance of the linear no-threshold model. Fewer (25% [79/322]) rejected the linear no-threshold model; 15% (47/322) could not judge. Among radiologists reporting linear no-threshold model acceptance or rejection, the minority (36% [98/275]) made decisions that were consistent with their linear no-threshold model beliefs. This finding was not statistically different across institutions (p = 0.070) or training levels (p = 0.183). Few radiologists (4% [13/322]) had an accurate understanding of linear no-threshold model implications.
conclusionMost radiologists, when faced with patient exposure histories, make decisions that contradict their self-reported acceptance of the linear no-threshold model and the linear no-threshold model itself. These findings underscore a need for educational initiatives.
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.