ArticleEmergency radiology2017
Practices and attitudes towards radiation risk disclosure for computed tomography: survey of emergency medicine residency program directors.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeThe purposes of this study were to evaluate the frequency with which emergency physicians involved in residency leadership disclose potential malignancy risks from computed tomography (CT), assess comfort with these discussions, and evaluate factors influencing risk disclosure.
methodsWe surveyed emergency medicine residency program directors and associate/assistant directors. Primary outcome was the proportion who "almost always" or "most of the time" discussed potential risks.
resultsTwo hundred and seventy-four (50.6%) of 542 eligible physicians responded. There were 82.1% (95% CI 76.8%, 86.6%) who reported almost always or most of the time discussing potential risks for patients ≤18 years; proportions for adults 19-40, 41-65, and >65 years were 50.6% (95% CI 44.4, 56.7%), 20.7% (95% CI 16.0, 26.0%), and 5.2% (95% CI 2.9, 8.5%), respectively (test for trend, p < 0.001). The proportion reporting being "extremely" or "very" comfortable discussing risks was 57.1% (95% CI 51.1, 63.2%). Patient/family CT request that the physician felt was not indicated was of "very high" or "high" importance for driving risk discussions in 86.4% of respondents. For 75.5%, patient/family query about radiation risks was of "high" or "very high" importance. Among 57.4% of respondents, the patient being elderly and/or having a reduced life expectancy was of "high" or "very high" importance in the decision not to discuss risk.
conclusionsEmergency physicians involved in residency leadership report frequently disclosing potential malignancy risks from CT at frequencies inversely proportional to patient age. About half are comfortable with discussions, and many discussions are driven by patient requests. Opportunities exist to optimize and standardize emergency department CT radiation risk disclosure practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28315025What 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.