ArticleRadiologia brasileira
Evaluation of non-radiologist physicians' knowledge on aspects related to ionizing radiation in imaging.
Article in Radiologia brasileira. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Flowchart to Guide Emergency Physicians to Order Radiological Imaging in Pregnant Patients: Findings from an Emergency Department Questionnaire.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Current Trends in Computed Tomography Practices in Japan and the Role of Referring Physicians in Radiation Exposure Management.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Article
- Study of scattered radiation during fluoroscopy in hip surgery.Radiologia brasileiraArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the non-radiologist physicians' knowledge on the use of ionizing radiation in imaging. MATERIALS AND
methodsCross-sectional study utilizing an anonymous questionnaire responded by physicians in clinical and surgical specialties, divided into two parts as follows: one including questions about the physicians' characteristics, frequency of imaging studies requests and participation in professional updating events, and another part including multiple choice questions approaching general knowledge about radiation, optimization principles and radioprotection.
resultsFrom a total of 309 questionnaires, 120 (38.8%) were responded, 50% by physicians in surgical specialties and 50% in clinical specialties; respectively 45% and 2.5% of physicians responded that magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasonography use ionizing radiation. Overall, the average grade was higher for surgical specialists with no significant difference, except for the question about exposure in pregnant women (p = 0.047). Physicians who are professionally updated, particularly those attending clinical meetings (p = 0.050) and participating in teaching activities (p = 0.047), showed statistically superior knowledge about ionizing radiation as compared with others.
conclusionThe non-radiologist physicians' knowledge is heterogeneous and in some points needs to be improved. Multidisciplinary clinical meetings and teaching activities are important ways to disseminate information on the subject.
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.