ReviewDer Radiologe2021
[Scientific assessment and regulatory approval of radiological screening examinations in Germany].
Review in Der Radiologe, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evidence-based health policy in Germany: lack of communication and coordination between academia and health authorities?Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- [Systematic and quality-assured early diagnosis of sporadic breast cancer : Update on screening effects and scientific studies].Der Radiologe · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadiologic imaging technologies like computed tomography (CT) have the potential to screen for various diseases. The potential benefits of screening are always associated with risks, particularly from the application of ionizing radiation. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe International Basic Safety Standards as well as the Council Directive 2013/59/Euratom have set guidelines for the application of ionizing radiation in early detection which were transposed into the German Radiation Protection Law. Accordingly, the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) approves screening examinations on a generic level, based on a scientific report provided by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS), and defines in a federal statutory ordinance which type of screening is permissible for detecting a disease for a particular group of persons and under which conditions.
resultsWith exception of the mammography screening programme, no radiological examination for the early detection of disease has been approved in Germany to date. However, such screenings are currently being offered in Germany. The BfS is currently conducting a scientific evaluation for lung cancer screening with low-dose CT.
conclusionsScreening examinations with radiological imaging can only be approved when studies with the highest level of evidence have demonstrated that the benefits outweigh the risks. To translate this favourable benefit-risk balance into general health care, strict requirements for the entire screening process including quality assurance must be defined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.