Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29856001›Full record

ArticleLa Radiologia medica2018

Complete written/oral information about dose exposure in CT: is it really useful to guarantee the patients' awareness about radiation risks?

Sergio Salerno, Cosimo Nardi, Chiara Tudisca, Domenica Matranga, Federica Vernuccio, Ambra Di Piazza, Valeria Selvi, Stefano Colagrande

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in La Radiologia medica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

8 authors.

Sergio SalernoDepartment of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnology, Section of Radiological Sciences, DIBIMED - University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 127, 90127, Palermo, Italy.
Cosimo NardiDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, University of Florence - Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.
Chiara TudiscaDepartment of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnology, Section of Radiological Sciences, DIBIMED - University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 127, 90127, Palermo, Italy. chiaratudisca@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4332-3673
Domenica MatrangaDepartment of Sciences for Health Promotion and Mother and Child Care "G. D'Alessandro", University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Federica VernuccioDepartment of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnology, Section of Radiological Sciences, DIBIMED - University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 127, 90127, Palermo, Italy.
Ambra Di PiazzaDepartment of Biopathology and Medical Biotechnology, Section of Radiological Sciences, DIBIMED - University of Palermo, Via del Vespro 127, 90127, Palermo, Italy.
Valeria SelviDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, University of Florence - Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.
Stefano ColagrandeDepartment of Experimental and Clinical Biomedical Sciences, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, University of Florence - Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134, Florence, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AIMS AND

objectivesAccording to the European directive 2013/59/Euratom, starting from February 2018, the information relating to patient exposure will be part of computed tomography (CT) reports, but the impact of this information on patients has not been deeply evaluated. Aim of our study was to evaluate patients' perception of radiation exposure related to routine CT and their understanding after communication of their dose exposure. MATERIALS AND

methodsA survey, investigating patient's knowledge of radiation dose, was given to all adult patients (> 18 years) undergoing a CT examination both before and after CT scan. The first survey was the same for all patients. After CT scan, a second questionnaire was administered (after receiving the CT dose bill report and medical written and/or explanation about ionizing radiation risk). Results of the pre- and post-CT questionnaires responses were compared according to demographics characteristics and among the four post-CT groups.

resultsFor some questions, statistically significant differences were found between the two centres. Seventy per cent of the patients answered that the presence of CT parameters in the report is considered useful. Even if not always statistically significant there was a slight increase in awareness of ionizing radiation risk comparing the pre- and post-CT surveys. The group that had both written and oral explanations had a better comprehension of CT dose bill (group III vs. I, p = 0.002).

conclusionThe way of communication of ionizing radiation risks did not affect the results of the post-CT survey. Indeed, the interest in the topic did not rise in the post-CT survey in any of the group. Adequate information about ionizing radiation risks provided together with dose exposure information may be useful. However, there is not a standardized better way of communicating information on ionizing radiation risks due to CT.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeRadiation DosageRadiation ExposureTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCommunicationCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicProspective StudiesComputed tomographyDose billIonizing radiation riskQuestionnaireRadiation dose

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.