ReviewThe British journal of radiology2021
Radiation protection perspective to recurrent medical imaging: what is known and what more is needed?
Review in The British journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- European multicenter study on recurrent imaging practice in computed tomography.The British journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Rethinking surveillance imaging to reduce radiation exposure among survivors of childhood cancer.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Shedding light on radiation exposure: Emergency vs. elective catheterization procedures in a prospective cohort study.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2025Article
- Expert panel on monitoring radiation doses from recurrent medical diagnostic procedures: Sixth Gilbert W. Beebe Webinar.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Review
- Radiation exposure in recurrent medical imaging: identifying drivers and high-risk populations.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Recurrent medical imaging exposures for the care of patients: one way forward.European radiology · 2024Review
- Article
- The demise of the plain Kidney Ureter Bladder Xray may have been slightly exaggerated.BJUI compass · 2023Article
- Premature senescence and cardiovascular disease following cancer treatments: mechanistic insights.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- A Study of Radiation Protection Standards Compliance in Hospital Radiographic Departments in Iran.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2022Article
- Article
- The cumulative radiation dose paradigm in pediatric imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Contemporary issues in radiation protection in medical imaging: introductory editorial.The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review summarises the current knowledge about recurrent radiological imaging and associated cumulative doses to patients. The recent conservative estimates are for around 0.9 million patients globally who cumulate radiation doses above 100 mSv, where evidence exists for cancer risk elevation. Around one in five is estimated to be under the age of 50. Recurrent imaging is used for managing various health conditions and chronic diseases such as malignancies, trauma, end-stage kidney disease, cardiovascular diseases, Crohn's disease, urolithiasis, cystic pulmonary disease. More studies are needed from different parts of the world to understand the magnitude and appropriateness. The analysis identified areas of future work to improve radiation protection of individuals who are submitted to frequent imaging. These include access to dose saving imaging technologies; improved imaging strategies and appropriateness process; specific optimisation tailored to the clinical condition and patient habitus; wider utilisation of the automatic exposure monitoring systems with an integrated option for individual exposure tracking in standardised patient-specific risk metrics; improved training and communication. The integration of the clinical and exposure history data will support improved knowledge about radiation risks from low doses and individual radiosensitivity. The radiation protection framework will need to respond to the challenge of recurrent imaging and high individual doses. The radiation protection perspective complements the clinical perspective, and the risk to benefit analysis must account holistically for all incidental and long-term benefits and risks for patients, their clinical history and specific needs. This is a step toward the patient-centric health care.
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.