Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29181580›Full record

ReviewPediatric radiology2018

Ionizing radiation from computed tomography versus anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging in infants and children: patient safety considerations.

Michael J Callahan, Robert D MacDougall, Sarah D Bixby, Stephan D Voss, Richard L Robertson, Joseph P Cravero

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Pediatric radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Michael J CallahanDepartment of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Ave., Boston, MA, 02115, USA. michael.callahan@childrens.harvard.edu.
Robert D MacDougallDepartment of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Ave., Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Sarah D BixbyDepartment of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Ave., Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Stephan D VossDepartment of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Ave., Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Richard L RobertsonDepartment of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Ave., Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
Joseph P CraveroDepartment of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 300 Longwood Ave., Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the context of health care, risk assessment is the identification, evaluation and estimation of risk related to a particular clinical situation or intervention compared to accepted medical practice standards. The goal of risk assessment is to determine an acceptable level of risk for a given clinical treatment or intervention in association with the provided clinical circumstances for a patient or group of patients. In spite of the inherent challenges related to risk assessment in pediatric cross-sectional imaging, the potential risks of ionizing radiation and sedation/anesthesia in the pediatric population are thought to be quite small. Nevertheless both issues continue to be topics of discussion concerning risk and generate significant anxiety and concern for patients, parents and practicing pediatricians. Recent advances in CT technology allow for more rapid imaging with substantially lower radiation exposures, obviating the need for anesthesia for many indications and potentially mitigating concerns related to radiation exposure. In this review, we compare and contrast the potential risks of CT without anesthesia against the potential risks of MRI with anesthesia, and discuss the implications of this analysis on exam selection, providing specific examples related to neuroblastoma surveillance imaging.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaMagnetic Resonance ImagingPatient SafetyRadiation, IonizingTomography, X-Ray ComputedBrain NeoplasmsChildChild, PreschoolHumansInfantInfant, NewbornNeuroblastomaRisk AssessmentAnesthesiaChildrenComputed tomographyIonizing radiationMagnetic resonance imagingNeuroblastomaSedation

Identifiers

PMID29181580

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.