ReviewPediatric radiology2015
Risks to the fetus from diagnostic imaging during pregnancy: review and proposal of a clinical protocol.
Review in Pediatric radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- An In-depth Analysis of the Adverse Effects of Ionizing Radiation Exposure on Cardiac Catheterization Staffs.Current radiopharmaceuticals · 2024Review
- X-RAY AND MOLECULAR IMAGING DURING PREGNANCY AND BREASTFEEDING-WHEN SHOULD WE BE WORRIED?Radiation protection dosimetry · 2021Review
- MRI in pregnant patients with suspected abdominal and pelvic cancer: a practical guide for radiologists.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2020Review
- Effect of radiologist pregnancy on the performance of pediatric fluoroscopic studies: a survey of Society for Pediatric Radiology members.Pediatric radiology · 2019Article
- Fluoroscopic practice patterns in pediatric radiology during pregnancy.Pediatric radiology · 2019Article
- Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in Pregnancy: A Body with Two Lives.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2018Article
- SAGES guidelines for the use of laparoscopy during pregnancy.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Article
- Radiological staging in pregnant patients with cancer.ESMO open · 2016Review
- Radiation exposure in pregnancy: outcomes, perceptions and teratological counseling in Turkish women.Annals of Saudi medicineArticle
- Health Impacts of Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation: Current Scientific Debates and Regulatory Issues.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Every day, medical practitioners face the dilemma of exposing pregnant or possibly pregnant patients to radiation from diagnostic examinations. Both doctors and patients often have questions about the risks of radiation. The most vulnerable period is between the 8th and 15th weeks of gestation. Deterministic effects like pregnancy loss, congenital malformations, growth retardation and neurobehavioral abnormalities have threshold doses above 100-200 mGy. The risk is considered negligible at 50 mGy and in reality no diagnostic examination exceeds this limit. The risk of carcinogenesis is slightly higher than in the general population. Intravenous iodinated contrast is discouraged, except in highly selected patients. Considering all the possible noxious effects of radiation exposure, measures to diminish radiation are essential and affect the fetal outcome. Nonionizing procedures should be considered whenever possible and every radiology center should have its own data analysis on fetal radiation exposure. In this review, we analyze existing literature on fetal risks due to radiation exposure, producing a clinical protocol to guide safe radiation use in a clinical setting.
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.