ReviewJACC. Cardiovascular imaging2016
Radiobiology in Cardiovascular Imaging.
Review in JACC. Cardiovascular imaging, 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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practical guidance to reduce radiation exposure in electrophysiology applying ultra low-dose protocols: a European Heart Rhythm Association review.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Review
- Low-dose radiation cancer risk hypothesis may lead to 'radiophobia'-driven imaging avoidance?Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2020Article
- Computed tomography coronary angiography - past, present and future.Singapore medical journal · 2020Review
- Retrospective study of patients radiation dose during cardiac catheterization procedures.The British journal of radiology · 2019Article
- Comparison of sequential and high-pitch-spiral coronary CT-angiography: image quality and radiation exposure.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2019Article
- Using radiation safely in cardiology: what imagers need to know.Heart (British Cardiac Society) · 2019Article
- SPECT: Workhorse of state of the art nuclear cardiology.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018Article
- Myocardial perfusion imaging: Lessons learned and work to be done-update.Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2018Review
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
Abstract
The introduction of ionizing radiation in medicine revolutionized the diagnosis and treatment of disease and dramatically improved and continues to improve the quality of health care. Cardiovascular imaging and medical imaging in general, however, are associated with a range of radiobiologic effects, including, in rare instances, moderate to severe skin damage resulting from cardiac fluoroscopy. For the dose range associated with diagnostic imaging (corresponding to effective doses on the order of 10 mSv [1 rem]), the possible effects are stochastic in nature and largely theoretical. The most notable of these effects, of course, is the possible increase in cancer risk. The current review addresses radiobiology relevant to cardiovascular imaging, with particular emphasis on radiation induction of cancer, including consideration of the linear nonthreshold dose-response model and of alternative models such as radiation hormesis.
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.