Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25304716›Full record

ArticlePediatric radiology2014

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.

Sjirk J Westra

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric radiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The cumulative radiation dose paradigm in pediatric imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2021
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Emergency Department Patients' Perceptions of Radiation From Medical Imaging.WMJ : official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin · 2016
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sjirk J WestraDivision of Pediatric Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 34 Fruit St., White 246A, Boston, MA, 02114, USA, swestra@partners.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In order to personalize the communication of the CT risk, we need to describe the risk in the context of the clinical benefit of CT, which will generally be much higher, provided a CT scan has a well-established clinical indication. However as pediatric radiologists we should be careful not to overstate the benefit of CT, being aware that medico-legal pressures and the realities of health care economics have led to overutilization of the technology. And even though we should not use previously accumulated radiation dose to a child as an argument against conducting a clinically indicated scan (the "sunk-cost" bias), we should consider patients' radiation history in the diagnostic decision process. As a contribution to future public health, it makes more sense to look for non-radiating alternatives to CT in the much larger group of basically healthy children who are receiving occasional scans for widely prevalent conditions such as appendicitis and trauma than to attempt lowering CT use in the smaller group of patients with chronic conditions with a limited life expectancy. When communicating the CT risk with individual patients and their parents, we should acknowledge and address their concerns within the framework of informed decision-making. When appropriate, we may express the individual radiation risk, based on estimates of summated absorbed organ dose, as an order of magnitude rather than as an absolute number, and compare this with the much larger natural cancer incidence over a child's lifetime, and with other risks in medicine and daily life. We should anticipate that many patients cannot make informed decisions on their own in this complex matter, and we should offer our guidance while maintaining respect for patient autonomy. Proper documentation of the informed decision process is important for future reference. In concert with our referring physicians, pediatric radiologists are well-equipped to tackle the complexities associated with the communication of CT risk, a task that often falls upon us, and by becoming more involved in the diagnostic decision process we can add value to the health care system.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentTomography, X-Ray ComputedChildEvidence-Based MedicineFemaleHumansInternationalityMaleNeoplasms, Radiation-InducedPatient Education as TopicPediatricsPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysician's RolePrecision MedicinePrevalenceRadiology

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.