ArticleWMJ : official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin2016
Emergency Department Patients' Perceptions of Radiation From Medical Imaging.
Article in WMJ : official publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiation-Related Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Medical Imaging Among the General Population in Iraq: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Risk Factors Analysis for 90-Day Mortality of Adult Patients with Mild Traumatic Brain Injury in an Italian Emergency Department.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Yield of whole-body computed tomography at a low-volume emergency department: A 5-year experience.Saudi medical journal · 2021Observational
- The Impact of Pregnancy on the Evaluation of Chest Pain and Shortness of Breath in the Emergency Department.Journal of acute medicine · 2018Article
- Prior CT imaging history for patients who undergo whole-body CT for acute traumatic injury and are discharged home from the emergency department.BMC emergency medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate emergency department patients' knowledge of radiation exposure and subsequent risks from computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans.
methodsThis is a cross-sectional survey study of adult, English-speaking patients from June to August 2011 at 2 emergency departments--1 academic and 1 community-based--in the upper Midwest. The survey consisted of 2 sets of 3 questions evaluating patients' knowledge of radiation exposure from medical imaging and subsequent radiation-induced malignancies and was based on a previously published survey. The question sets paralleled each other, but one pertained to CT and the other to MRI. Questions in the survey ascertained patients' understanding of (1) the relative amount of radiation exposed from CT/MRI compared with a single chest x-ray; (2) the relative amount of radiation exposed from CT/MRI compared with a nuclear power plant accident; and (3) the possibility of radiation-induced malignancies from CT/MRl. Sociodemographic data also were gathered. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of correct answers to each survey question. Multiple logistic regression then was used to examine the relationship between the percentage correct for each question and sociodemographic variables, using odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
resultsThere were 500 participants in this study, 315 from the academic center and 185 from the community hospital. Overall, 14.1% (95% CI, 11.0%-17.2%) of participants understood the relative radiation exposure of a CT scan compared with a chest x-ray, while 22.8% (95% CI, 18.9%-26.7%) of respondents understood the lack of ionizing radiation use with MRI. At the same time, 25.6% (95% CI, 21.8%- 29.4%) believed that there was an increased risk of developing cancer from repeated abdominal CTs, while 55.6% (95% CI, 51.1%-60.1%) believed this to be true of abdominal MRI. Higher educational level and identification as a health care professional were associated with correct responses. However, even within these groups, a significant majority gave incorrect responses to all questions.
conclusionPatients did not demonstrate understanding of the degree of radiation exposure from CT scans and the subsequent risks associated with this exposure, namely radiation-induced malignancies. Moreover, they did not understand that MRI scans do not expose them to ionizing radiation and therefore lack this downstream effect. While patient preference is integral to patient-centered care, physicians should be aware of the significant lack of knowledge as it pertains to the selection of medical imaging tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27057576PMC4980072What 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.