ReviewThe British journal of radiology2021
The cumulative radiation dose paradigm in pediatric imaging.
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 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.
- Next-gen paediatric imaging: ultra-low dose chest photon-counting CT approaching chest radiograph doses.European radiology experimental · 2026Article
- The impact of hospital volume on CT usage in the management of pediatric empyema.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Cumulative dose in pediatric CT "frequent flyers": cohort results and risk review.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Photon-counting CT yields superior abdominopelvic image quality at lower radiation and iodinated contrast doses.Pediatric radiology · 2025Article
- Expert panel on monitoring radiation doses from recurrent medical diagnostic procedures: Sixth Gilbert W. Beebe Webinar.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Review
- Skeletal surveys for suspected infant abuse: patient-specific radiation dose estimation using a hybrid computational phantom.Pediatric radiology · 2025Article
- Recurrent medical imaging exposures for the care of patients: one way forward.European radiology · 2024Review
- Cumulative radiation exposure from multimodality recurrent imaging of CT, fluoroscopically guided intervention, and nuclear medicine.European radiology · 2024Article
- Comparison of the different imaging modalities used to image pediatric oncology patients: A COG diagnostic imaging committee/SPR oncology committee white paper.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2023Article
- The assessment of image quality and diagnostic value in X-ray images: a survey on radiographers' reasons for rejecting images.Insights into imaging · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical imaging professionals have an accountability for both quality and safety in the care of patients that have unexpected or anticipated repeated imaging examinations that use ionizing radiation. One measure in the safety realm for repeated imaging is cumulative effective dose (CED). CED has been increasingly scrutinized in patient populations, including adults and children. Recognizing the challenges with effective dose, including the cumulative nature, effective dose is still the most prevalent exposure currency for recurrent imaging examinations. While the responsibility for dose monitoring incorporates an element of tracking an individual patient cumulative radiation record, a more complex aspect is what should be done with this information. This challenge also differs between the pediatric and adult population, including the fact that high cumulative doses (
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.