Trial reportPloS one2013
Diagnostic radiation exposure of injury patients in the emergency department: a cross-sectional large scaled study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiation exposure in recurrent medical imaging: identifying drivers and high-risk populations.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Patterns of computed tomography utilisation in injury management: latent classes approach using linked administrative data in Western Australia.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023Observational
- Pelvic radiation dose measurement for trauma patients in multifield radiographic examinations: A phantom-based TLD dosimetry study.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Radiation protection perspective to recurrent medical imaging: what is known and what more is needed?The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- CT scan incidental findings in trauma patients: does it impact hospital length of stay?Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2017Article
- Cumulative doses analysis in young trauma patients: a single-centre experience.La Radiologia medica · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In contrast to patients with underlying cancer or chronic disease, injury patients are relatively young, and can be expected to live their natural lifespan if injuries are appropriately treated. Multiple and repeated diagnostic scans might be performed in these patients during admission. Nevertheless, radiation exposure in injury patients has been overlooked and underestimated because of the emergent nature of such situations. Therefore, we tried to assess the cumulative effective dose (cED) of injury patients in the emergency department. We included patients who visited the emergency department (ED) of a single tertiary hospital due to injury between February 2010 and February 2011. The cED for each patient was calculated and compared across age, sex and injury mechanism. A total of 11,676 visits (mean age: 28.0 years, M:F = 6,677:4,999) were identified. Although CT consisted of only 7.8% of total radiologic examinations (n=78,025), it accounted for 87.1% of the total cED. The mean cED per visit was 2.6 mSv. A significant difference in the cED among injury mechanisms was seen (p<0.001) and patients with traffic accidents and fall down injuries showed relatively high cED values. Hence, to reduce the cED of injury patients, an age-, sex- and injury mechanism-specific dose reduction strategy should be considered.
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.