ReviewClinical imaging
Imaging-based screening: maximizing benefits and minimizing harms.
Review in Clinical imaging. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Rising Risk of Subsequent Primary Cancers Among US Cancer Survivors, 2000-2021.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Prevalence and Features of Incidental Findings in Veterinary Computed Tomography: A Single-Center Six-Years' Experience.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Nanomedicine Ex Machina: Between Model-Informed Development and Artificial Intelligence.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Review
- Inflammatory bowel disease patient perceptions of diagnostic and monitoring tests and procedures.BMC gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Surveillance for Late Effects in Childhood Cancer Survivors.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2018Review
- Diagnosis of Cerebral Aneurysm Via Magnetic Resonance Angiography Screening: Emphasis on Legal Responsibility Increases False Positive Rate.Neurointervention · 2018Article
- The Utility of Routine Ultrasound Imaging after Elective Transplant Ureteric Stent Removal.Journal of transplantation · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Advanced imaging technologies play a central role in screening asymptomatic patients. However, the balance between imaging-based screening's potential benefits versus risks is sometimes unclear. Radiologists will have to address ongoing concerns, including high false-positive rates, incidental findings outside the organ of interest, overdiagnosis, and potential risks from radiation exposure. In this article, we provide a brief overview of these recurring controversies and suggest the following as areas that radiologists should focus on in order to tip the balance toward more benefits and less harms for patients undergoing imaging-based screening: interpretive variability, abnormal finding thresholds, and personalized, risk-based screening.
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.