ArticlePediatric radiology2017
Pediatric providers and radiology examinations: knowledge and comfort levels regarding ionizing radiation and potential complications of imaging.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining proficiency in radiation safetyamong pediatric residents in Palestine: a multicenter cross-sectional survey.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- EANM procedural recommendations for managing the paediatric patient in diagnostic nuclear medicine.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2023Review
- Feasibility of bedside portable MRI in neonates and children during ECLS.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPediatric providers should understand the basic risks of the diagnostic imaging tests they order and comfortably discuss those risks with parents. Appreciating providers' level of understanding is important to guide discussions and enhance relationships between radiologists and pediatric referrers.
objectiveTo assess pediatric provider knowledge of diagnostic imaging modalities that use ionizing radiation and to understand provider concerns about risks of imaging. MATERIALS AND
methodsA 6-question survey was sent via email to 390 pediatric providers (faculty, trainees and midlevel providers) from a single academic institution. A knowledge-based question asked providers to identify which radiology modalities use ionizing radiation. Subjective questions asked providers about discussions with parents, consultations with radiologists, and complications of imaging studies.
resultsOne hundred sixty-nine pediatric providers (43.3% response rate) completed the survey. Greater than 90% of responding providers correctly identified computed tomography (CT), fluoroscopy and radiography as modalities that use ionizing radiation, and ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as modalities that do not. Fewer (66.9% correct, P<0.001) knew that nuclear medicine utilizes ionizing radiation. A majority of providers (82.2%) believed that discussions with radiologists regarding ionizing radiation were helpful, but 39.6% said they rarely had time to do so. Providers were more concerned with complications of sedation and cost than they were with radiation-induced cancer, renal failure or anaphylaxis.
conclusionProviders at our academic referral center have a high level of basic knowledge regarding modalities that use ionizing radiation, but they are less aware of ionizing radiation use in nuclear medicine studies. They find discussions with radiologists helpful and are concerned about complications of sedation and cost.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28852812What 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.