Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34545766›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2021

Epidemiological studies of CT scans and cancer risk: the state of the science.

Amy Berrington de Gonzalez, Elisa Pasqual, Lene Veiga

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Improvement in Image Quality and Efficiency of Non-contrast Thoracic MR Angiography: Comparison of a Highly Accelerated Dixon-based Technique with the Conventional Fat-suppressed Technique.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. CT scanning and questions about benefit versus risk.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amy Berrington de GonzalezRadiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7332-8387
Elisa PasqualRadiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Lene VeigaRadiation Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA.
National Cancer Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

20 years ago, 3 manuscripts describing doses and potential cancer risks from CT scans in children raised awareness of a growing public health problem. We reviewed the epidemiological studies that were initiated in response to these concerns that assessed cancer risks from CT scans using medical record linkage. We evaluated the study methodology and findings and provide recommendations for optimal study design for new efforts. We identified 17 eligible studies; 13 with published risk estimates, and 4 in progress. There was wide variability in the study methodology, however, which made comparison of findings challenging. Key differences included whether the study focused on childhood or adulthood exposure, radiosensitive outcomes (

Indexed as

Tomography, X-Ray ComputedEpidemiologic StudiesHumansNeoplasms, Radiation-InducedOrgans at RiskRadiation DosageRadiation, IonizingRisk Assessment

Identifiers

PMID34545766
PMCPMC9328069
OpenAlexW3199858370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.