Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30426180›Full record

ArticlePediatric radiology2019

Parents' received and expected information about their child's radiation exposure during radiographic examinations.

Heljä T Oikarinen, Anne M Perttu, Helena M Mahajan, Leila H Ukkola, Osmo A Tervonen, Aino-Liisa I Jussila, Anja O Henner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Computed tomography associated radiation exposure in children with craniosynostosis.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2021
    Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Heljä T OikarinenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, POB 50, 90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland. helja.oikarinen@ppshp.fi.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6332-5035
Anne M PerttuDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, POB 50, 90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland.
Helena M MahajanDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, POB 50, 90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland.
Leila H UkkolaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, POB 50, 90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland.
Osmo A TervonenDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, Oulu University Hospital, POB 50, 90029 OYS, Oulu, Finland.
Aino-Liisa I JussilaOulu University of Applied Sciences, Kiviharjuntie 4, 90220, Oulu, Finland.
Anja O HennerOulu University of Applied Sciences, Kiviharjuntie 4, 90220, Oulu, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite regulations, insufficient information is provided to adult patients prior to their radiologic examinations. Information regarding paediatric patients has not been systematically studied.

objectiveTo survey parents' experience and wishes for information in connection with their child's radiographic examination. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe provided a questionnaire to consenting parents of children younger than 12 years old at a university hospital. The questionnaire asked parents about the information obtained from the referrer prior to the radiograph, the chance to discuss with the referrer and their wishes regarding future information. Forty-one parents responded to the survey. Twenty-five children were referred for radiography of extremities, the others for dental, body and skull examinations.

resultsAltogether 34/41 (83%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 69-91%) parents said they received adequate information on the purpose of the examination, 8/35 (23%, 95% CI 12-39%) on other options and 3/41 (7%, 95% CI 3-19%) on radiation dose. Ten of 41 parents (24%, 95% CI 12-40%) said they were aware of radiation exposure. The number of previous radiology examinations was not sufficiently discussed. The communication was scored as mean 6.5 (95% CI 5.8-7.1) on a scale from 4 (poor) to 10 (excellent). Thirty-eight of 40 (95%, 95% CI 84-99%) of parents expected information on the purpose, 35/40 (88%, 95% CI 74-95%) on radiation dose and 31/40 (78%, 95% CI 63-88%) on other options. Symbols of radiation and corresponding period of natural background radiation are preferred to convey the dose. A referrer is the preferred source of information.

conclusionParents did not feel adequately informed prior to their child's radiographic examination. Parents expect more information about the purpose, dose and alternative tests.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingHealth CommunicationRadiation ExposureChildFemaleHumansMaleParentsRiskSurveys and QuestionnairesChildrenCommunicationInformed consentIonising radiationRadiography

Identifiers

PMID30426180
PMCPMC6334726

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.