Addition of diagnostic CT scan does not increase the cancer risk in patients undergoing SPECT studies: comment on Brix et al.: radiation risk and protection of patients in clinical SPECT/CT.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Awareness of radiation hazards in patients attending radiology departments.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2021
   Article
2. Response to letter by Doss: addition of diagnostic CT scan does not increase the cancer risk in patients undergoing SPECT studies.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2014
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Response to letter by Doss: addition of diagnostic CT scan does not increase the cancer risk in patients undergoing SPECT studies.2014
• Comment on
  Radiation risk and protection of patients in clinical SPECT/CT.2014

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as