SynthesisPediatric radiology2014
If it is published in the peer-reviewed literature, it must be true?
Synthesis in Pediatric radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Epidemiological research correlating cancer rates in a population of patients with radiation doses from medical X-rays is fraught with confounding factors that obfuscate the likelihood that any positive relationship is causal. This is a review of four studies involving some of those confounding factors. Comparisons of findings with other studies not encumbered by similar confounding factors can enhance assertions of causation between medical X-rays and cancer rates. Even so, such assertions rest significantly on opinions of researchers regarding the degree of consistency between findings among various studies. The question as to what degree any findings truly represent cause and effect will likely still meet with controversy. The importance of these findings to medicine should therefore not lie in any controversy regarding causation, but in what the findings potentially mean with regard to benefit and risk for patients and the professional practice of medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25304706What 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.