ReviewLa Radiologia medica2017
Radiation exposure in diagnostic imaging: wisdom and prudence, but still a lot to understand.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Communicating radiation risk in healthcare: an ethical imperative amidst scientific uncertainty.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Optimizing radiation dose and image quality in neonatal mobile radiography.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2025Article
- In vivo radiation dosimetry and image quality of turbo-flash and retrospective dual-source CT coronary angiography.La Radiologia medica · 2020Article
- Pelvic floor dysfunctions: how to image patients?Japanese journal of radiology · 2020Review
- Dual-energy CT: theoretical principles and clinical applications.La Radiologia medica · 2019Review
- Primary pulmonary lymphoma: imaging findings in 30 cases.La Radiologia medica · 2019Article
- Third-generation dual-source dual-energy CT in pediatric congenital heart disease patients: state-of-the-art.La Radiologia medica · 2019Review
- Protecting sensitive patient groups from imaging using ionizing radiation: effects during pregnancy, in fetal life and childhood.La Radiologia medica · 2019Review
- Trends in radiation dose and image quality for pediatric patients with a multidetector CT and a third-generation dual-source dual-energy CT.La Radiologia medica · 2019Article
- Parents' received and expected information about their child's radiation exposure during radiographic examinations.Pediatric radiology · 2019Article
- Is MRI imaging in pediatric age totally safe? A critical reprisal.La Radiologia medica · 2018Review
- 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.