ArticleJournal of natural science, biology, and medicine
A prospective study assessing clinicians attitude and knowledge on radiation exposure to patients during radiological investigations.
Article in Journal of natural science, biology, and medicine. 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.
- Knowledge of radiation exposure associated with common trauma imaging modalities among orthopaedic surgeons, emergency medicine physicians, and general surgeons in the United States.World journal of emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Are physicians aware enough of patient radiation protection? Results from a survey among physicians of Pavia District- Italy.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Knowledge on Irradiation, Medical Imaging Prescriptions, and Clinical Imaging Referral Guidelines among Physicians in a Sub-Saharan African Country (Cameroon).Radiology research and practice · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExposure to radiation during radiological investigations is of health concern, which referring physicians should rationalize. Hence, we assessed the clinician's awareness and concern of radiation exposure to patients, in relation to their referral practice. MATERIALS AND
methodsA prospective study was conducted involving specialists from Punjab (India), who were handed a standard set of questionnaire concerning knowledge of radiation hazards and doses from imaging procedures, consideration of radiation dose and age when referring, referrals not likely to affect treatment, and use of referral guidelines were included. Of the 150 medical doctors given the questionnaire, 106 returned it.
resultsMajority of the clinicians underestimated radiation doses, while a few overestimated it. Almost half of the clinicians (55.5%) favored to select the rationale of asking about previous radiological examinations as clinical need only, which was surprising. Rates of referrals unlikely to affect treatment were more (66%) than reported rates in previous studies. Worryingly, only 30.1% of the clinicians had knowledge of referral guidelines and alarmingly only 10.5% had made use of it.
conclusionsOur study although in a small population size identifies inadequate knowledge on radiation and its guidelines among referral physicians, which warrants the immediate need for training programs to bridge this knowledge gap.
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.