Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31754532›Full record

ArticleSA journal of radiology2019

Medical doctors' awareness of radiation exposure in diagnostic radiology investigations in a South African academic institution.

Akingboye M Dauda, John O Ozoh, Olakunle A Towobola

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SA journal of radiology, 2019. 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
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. The cumulative radiation dose paradigm in pediatric imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2021
    Review
  9. Health-related quality of life among radiology technicians in Turkish hospitals: a cross sectional study.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Akingboye M DaudaDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology and Imaging, Dr George Mukhari Academic Hospital, Ga-Rankuwa, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7979-1295
John O OzohDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology and Imaging, Dr George Mukhari Academic Hospital, Ga-Rankuwa, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6683-0734
Olakunle A TowobolaDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Ga-Rankuwa, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6949-107X
Dr George Mukhari Hospital · ZASefako Makgatho Health Sciences University · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnostic investigations using radiation have become a critical feature of medical practice in recent times. However, the possibility of doctors' underestimation of risks of over-exposure of patients to diagnostic radiation still warrants further evaluation.

objectivesTo investigate doctors' awareness of diagnostic radiation exposure at Dr George Mukhari Academic Hospital, South Africa.

methodsThis was a cross-sectional, analytical investigation of the awareness of doctors about radiation exposure in diagnostic radiology investigations. A cluster sampling technique was employed to recruit 217 participants. Consent and approval of the participants were sought and obtained before questionnaire administration during departmental meetings between October 2017 and March 2018.

resultsOf the participants, 80% had no formal training on radiation exposure and 33.8% of them correctly estimated natural background radiation. Correct estimates of the effective dose from a single-view abdominal X-ray (AXR) were expressed by 7.5%, quantity of radiation of a single-phase computed tomography (CT) abdomen by 30.3% and dosage from a two-view unilateral mammogram by 29.1% of the participants. More than 75% of participants agreed that children are more sensitive to radiation, but only 10.5% suggested medical termination of pregnancy for a woman who had CT abdomen and pelvis with contrast. Dosage and risk of inducing fatal cancer from common but more complex imaging procedures were poorly understood. Only the doctors of the radiology department showed a statistically significant (

conclusionBecause of the high rate of poor awareness of radiation risks observed in this study, it is important to initiate, early in the medical curriculum for medical students, the need for a rotation in the Department of Radiology, similar to such rotations in other medical specialties.

Indexed as

Awarenessdiagnostic radiologyeducation and trainingexposuremedical doctorspatient safetyradiation protectionrisk

Identifiers

PMID31754532
PMCPMC6837774
OpenAlexW2941783523

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.