SynthesisThe British journal of radiology2021
Cumulative radiation doses due to nuclear medicine examinations: a systematic review.
Synthesis 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 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.
- Patients undergoing multipleThe British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo systematically review the published data regarding the cumulative exposure to radiation in selected cohorts of adults or paediatric patients due to diagnostic nuclear medicine examinations.
methodsWe conducted PubMed/Medline searches of peer-reviewed papers on cumulated effective dose (CED) from diagnostic nuclear medicine procedures published between 01 January 2010 until 31 January 2021. Studies were considered eligible if the contribution of nuclear medicine examinations to total CED was >10%. Studies reporting cumulative doses in a single episode of care or in a limited time (≤1 year) were excluded. The main outcomes for which data were sought were the CED accrued by patients, the period in which the CED was accrued, the percentage of patients with CED > 100 mSv and the percentage contribution due to nuclear medicine procedures to the overall CED.
resultsThe studies included in the synthesis were 18 which enrolled a total of 1,76,371 patients. Eleven (1,757 patients), three (1,74,079 patients) and four (535 patients) were related to oncological, cardiologic and transplanted patients, respectively. All the studies were retrospective; some of the source materials referred to small number of patients and some of the patients were followed for a short time. Not many studies accurately quantified the contribution of nuclear medicine procedures to the overall radiation exposure due to medical imaging. Finally, most of the studies covered an observation period which extended mainly in the 2000-2010 decade.
conclusionsThere is a need of prospective, multicentric studies enrolling a greater number of patients, followed for longer period in selected groups of patients to fully capture the cumulative exposure to radiation in these settings. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This systematic review allows to identify selected group of patients with a specific health status in which the cumulated exposure to radiation may be of concern and where the contribution of nuclear medicine procedures to the total CED is significant.
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.