ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Comparison of 12 surrogates to characterize CT radiation risk across a clinical population.
Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Accuracy of Noise Measurements in Patient CT Images.Academic radiology · 2026Article
- Optimization of abdominal CT based on a model of total risk minimization by putting radiation risk in perspective with imaging benefit.Communications medicine · 2024Article
- Characterizing imaging radiation risk in a population of 8918 patients with recurrent imaging for a better effective dose.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Estimating size specific dose estimate from computed tomography radiograph localizer with radiation risk assessment.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
- Diagnostic reference level quantities for adult chest and abdomen-pelvis CT examinations: correlation with organ doses.Insights into imaging · 2023Article
- Making CT Dose Monitoring Meaningful: Augmenting Dose with Imaging Quality.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Article
- Identification and characterization of patients being exposed to computed-tomography associated radiation-doses above 100 mSv in a real-life setting.European journal of radiology open · 2023Article
- Dose coefficients for organ dosimetry in tomosynthesis imaging of adults and pediatrics across diverse protocols.Medical physics · 2022Article
- Organ doses and cancer risk assessment in patients exposed to high doses from recurrent CT exams.European journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Statement of the Italian Association of Medical Physics (AIFM) task group on radiation dose monitoring systems.Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- CT Radiomic Features of Superior Mesenteric Artery Involvement in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Pilot Study.Radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesQuantifying radiation burden is essential for justification, optimization, and personalization of CT procedures and can be characterized by a variety of risk surrogates inducing different radiological risk reflections. This study compared how twelve such metrics can characterize risk across patient populations.
methodsThis study included 1394 CT examinations (abdominopelvic and chest). Organ doses were calculated using Monte Carlo methods. The following risk surrogates were considered: volume computed tomography dose index (CTDI
resultsThe analysis reported significant differences between the metrics with ED
conclusionDifferent risk surrogates lead to different population risk characterizations. ED KEY POINTS: • Radiation risk characterization in CT populations is strongly affected by the surrogate used to describe it. • Different risk surrogates can lead to different characterization of population risk. • Healthcare professionals should exercise care in ascribing an implicit risk to factors that do not closely reflect risk.
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.