Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27888430›Full record

ReviewLa Radiologia medica2017

Radiation exposure in diagnostic imaging: wisdom and prudence, but still a lot to understand.

Paolo Tomà, Vittorio Cannatà, Elisabetta Genovese, Andrea Magistrelli, Claudio Granata

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in La Radiologia medica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Pelvic floor dysfunctions: how to image patients?Japanese journal of radiology · 2020
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paolo TomàImaging Department, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, 00146, Rome, Italy.
Vittorio CannatàClinical Technology Innovations Research Area, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, 00146, Rome, Italy.
Elisabetta GenoveseClinical Technology Innovations Research Area, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, 00146, Rome, Italy.
Andrea MagistrelliImaging Department, Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, IRCCS, 00146, Rome, Italy.
Claudio GranataDepartment of Radiology, IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini, 16147, Genoa, Italy. cgranata@sirm.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3072-4096
Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital · ITIstituto Giannina Gaslini · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since 2000, a series of scientific articles on CT have been raising increasing concern about the risk of radiation induced cancer in children. The alarming conclusions of some of these articles had international echo through global media, provoking widespread public concern. Actually, many of these alarming scientific publications appeared to be flawed by poor study design, but their conclusions were not openly contradicted. In US and Europe pediatric radiologists had to face a huge challenge, which brought to the Image Gently campaign and the Eurosafe initiative with the aim to rebut misinformation and to support medical radiation protection. The Linear No Threshold model-which is the base of contemporary radioprotection-is increasingly questioned by new recent studies suggesting that low dose radiation would decrease cancer risk thanks to the enhancement of immune system response. Actually, pediatric radiologists have to cope with many important issues and contradictory messages. Good medical practice includes good communication about the benefits and risks of health procedures, thus the communication of radiation risk is a key component for radiologists. When considering benefits and risks, an important risk is too often ignored: the risk that skipping a diagnostic exam may cause a misdiagnosis, and therefore, a poor outcome. We should emphasize that a risk from a radiological investigation is very small, if a risk at all, and we are not sure that there is a risk at very low doses, like those doses in the majority of X-ray procedures including CT.

Indexed as

Mass MediaNeoplasms, Radiation-InducedRadiation ProtectionChildCommunicationDiagnostic ImagingFemaleHumansMaleRadiation DosageRadiation ExposureTomography, X-Ray ComputedChildComputed tomographyPediatric radiologyRadiation induced cancerRadiation protection

Identifiers

PMID27888430
OpenAlexW2554013910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.