ArticleLa Radiologia medica2019
Medical radiological procedures: which information would be chosen for the report?
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- GPT-4 for automated sequence-level determination of MRI protocols based on radiology request forms from clinical routine.European radiology · 2026Article
- Computed tomography dose management practices and the adoption of automated dose monitoring tools in Australia: a national survey.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2025Article
- Large Language Models-Supported Thrombectomy Decision-Making in Acute Ischemic Stroke Based on Radiology Reports: Feasibility Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Communicating radiation dose in medical imaging: How to best inform our patients?Acta radiologica open · 2023Article
- Structured and shared CT radiological report of gastric cancer: a consensus proposal by the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer (GIRCG) and the Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM).European radiology · 2022Article
- Radiomics as a New Frontier of Imaging for Cancer Prognosis: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Large Bowel Ischemia/Infarction: How to Recognize It and Make Differential Diagnosis? A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Radiation protection in non-ionizing and ionizing body composition assessment procedures.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2020Review
- Editorial from guest editors current Euratom legislation (DE 59/2013): new patient management in radiation protection.La Radiologia medica · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIMS AND
objectivesThe aim of this study was to properly define the information regarding patient exposure to Ionizing Radiations in the radiological report, according to the European Directive 2013/59/EURATOM (EU 2013/59 art.58(b)). For this purpose, we evaluated the results from other Member States EU 2013/59 transpositions and from Guidelines recommendation published by International Organizations involved in diagnostic radiology. A practical way for implementing art.58 is also traced. MATERIALS AND
methodsDosimetric quantities, such as exposure, absorbed dose and effective dose which may be included in radiological report, were first analyzed; then, in order to define international state of art of Member States EU 2013/59 transposition, a Web research using French, English, Spanish and German key words was performed.
resultsEU 2013/59 transposition for 5 Member States was reported. Especially regarding art.58, a European project reports that few European countries (11 of 28) have identified the dose metrics to be used in radiological report. Scientific organizations supporting clinical radiologists and medical physicists have published Guidelines reporting parameters useful to quantify the radiation output and to assess patient dose.
conclusionsOur research revealed that there is not a shared interpretation of patient exposure information to be included in radiological report. Nevertheless, according to scientific community, authors believe that the exposure is the most appropriate information that could be included in radiological report. Alternatively, but with more expensiveness, a risk index based on effective dose could be used. Moreover, the systematic exposure information recorded could be useful for dose estimates of population from medical exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30972532What 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.