Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31792585›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2020

Patients undergoing recurrent CT scans: assessing the magnitude.

Madan M Rehani, Kai Yang, Emily R Melick, John Heil, Dušan Šalát, William F Sensakovic, Bob Liu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 73 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
73citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

73 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 163 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Impact of Low-Dose X-Ray Radiation Exposure on Lung Cancer Progression.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Patient-specific organ dose calculation using automatic segmentation and extension of CT scans.Radiation physics and chemistry (Oxford, England : 1993) · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

13 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Madan M RehaniRadiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, 175 Cambridge Str., Suite 244, Boston, MA, 02114, USA. madan.rehani@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3519-1516
Kai YangRadiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, 175 Cambridge Str., Suite 244, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Emily R MelickRadiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, 175 Cambridge Str., Suite 244, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
John HeilImalogix Research Institute, Bryn Mawr, PA, 19010, USA.
Dušan ŠalátInstitute of Radiation Protection, Továrenská 22, 911 05, Trenčín, Slovakia.
William F SensakovicAdventHealth, Orlando, FL, USA.
Bob LiuRadiology Department, Massachusetts General Hospital, 175 Cambridge Str., Suite 244, Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Massachusetts General Hospital · USAdventHealth Orlando · USBryn Mawr College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess percent of patients undergoing multiple CT exams that leads to cumulative effective dose (CED) of ≥ 100 mSv and determine their age distribution.

methodsData was retrieved retrospectively from established radiation dose monitoring systems by setting the threshold value of 100 mSv at four institutions covering 324 hospitals. The number of patients with CED ≥ 100 mSv only from recurrent CT exams during a feasible time period between 1 and 5 years was identified. Age and gender distribution of these patients were assessed to identify the magnitude of patients in the relatively lower age group of ≤ 50 years.

resultsOf the 2.5 million (2,504,585) patients who underwent 4.8 million (4,819,661) CT exams during the period of between 1 and 5 years, a total of 33,407 (1.33%) patients received a CED of ≥ 100 mSv with an overall median CED of 130.3 mSv and maximum of 1185 mSv. Although the vast majority (72-86%) of patients are > 50 years of age, nearly 20% (13.4 to 28%) are ≤ 50 years. The minimum time to accrue 100 mSv was a single day at all four institutions, an unreported finding to date.

conclusionsWe are in an unprecedented era, where patients undergoing multiple CT exams and receiving CED ≥ 100 mSv are not uncommon. While underscoring the need for imaging appropriateness, the consideration of the number and percent of patients with high exposures and related clinical necessities creates an urgent need for the industry to develop CT scanners and protocols with sub-mSv radiation dose, a goal that has been lingering. KEY POINTS: • We are in an era where patients undergoing multiple CT exams during a short span of 1 to 5 years are not uncommon and a sizable fraction among them are below 50 years of age. • This leads to cumulative radiation dose to individual patients at which radiation effects are of real concern. • There is an urgent need for the industry to develop CT scanners with sub-mSv radiation dose, a goal that has been lingering.

Indexed as

Radiation DosageAdultAge DistributionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSex DistributionTomography Scanners, X-Ray ComputedTomography, X-Ray ComputedYoung AdultPatient safetyRadiation dosageRadiation protectionRadiologic technologyRisk

Identifiers

PMID31792585
OpenAlexW2990150985

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.