Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28948391›Full record

ArticleEmergency radiology2018

Awareness of radiation risks from CT scans among patients and providers and obstacles for informed decision-making.

Angel L Schuster, Howard P Forman, Paula D Strassle, Laura T Meyer, Scott V Connelly, Christoph I Lee

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Emergency radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. The cumulative radiation dose paradigm in pediatric imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2021
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors.

Angel L SchusterDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Cape Fear Valley Medical Center, 1638 Owen Drive, Fayetteville, NC, 28304, USA. Angel.L.Schuster@gmail.com.
Howard P FormanDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06510, USA.
Paula D StrassleDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 135 Dauer Drive, 2101 McGavran-Greenberg Hall, CB #7435, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Laura T MeyerDepartment of Radiology, WakeMed Health and Hospitals, Raleigh Campus, 3000 New Bern Avenue, Raleigh, NC, 27610, USA.
Scott V ConnellyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, WakeMed Health and Hospitals, Raleigh Campus, 3000 New Bern Avenue, 3rd Floor MOB, Raleigh, NC, 27610, USA.
Christoph I LeeDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, 825 Eastlake Avenue East, G3-200, Seattle, WA, 98109-1023, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUsing the study design from a prominent 2004 study, we aimed to reassess patient, provider, and radiologist awareness of CT radiation more than a decade later.

methodsAdults presenting to the emergency department of a tertiary care center over a 2-week period with mild to moderate pain requiring an abdominopelvic CT scan were surveyed. Patients were asked if anyone had discussed the risks/benefits of the CT scan including radiation dose and were asked to estimate their dose compared to a chest X-ray. Emergency providers and radiologists were given similar surveys and were asked about potential obstacles to discussing CT radiation with patients.

resultsA total of 101 patients, 570 emergency providers, and 161 radiologists were surveyed. Twenty-three percent (14/61) of patients, 39% (219/568) of emergency providers, and 48% (77/161) of radiologists correctly selected the radiation dose range of an abdominopelvic CT. Seventy-eight percent (441/567) of emergency providers reported routinely discussing radiation dose with patients, while 20% (20/98) of patients reported that their emergency provider discussed radiation dose with them. Time limitation and concern of dissuading the patient from CT were the most commonly reported obstacles for discussing risks.

conclusionsPatients and providers in 2015 appear to be more aware of radiation dose from CT than they were in 2004. Discussion of CT scan radiation exposure and associated risks only occurs sometimes and may actually occur less frequently than perceived by emergency providers.

Indexed as

Decision MakingRadiation DosageAdultEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansInformed ConsentMaleMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'RiskTomography, X-Ray ComputedComputed tomographyInformed consentRadiation doseRadiation risks

Identifiers

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.