Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34643721›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2021

Patient Perceptions and Knowledge of Ionizing Radiation From Medical Imaging.

Luca Bastiani, Fabio Paolicchi, Lorenzo Faggioni, Massimo Martinelli, Roberta Gerasia, Chiara Martini, Patrizia Cornacchione, Matteo Ceccarelli, Dante Chiappino, Daniele Della Latta and 9 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 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 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Knowledge and attitudes toward [BMC medical education · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Assessment of radiographers' knowledge about radiation doses and DRLs in computed tomography departments in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Luca BastianiInstitute of Clinical Physiology of the Italian National Research Council, Pisa, Italy.
Fabio PaolicchiDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Lorenzo FaggioniDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Massimo MartinelliItalian National Research Council Institute of Information Science and Technologies, Signals & Images Laboratory, Pisa, Italy.
Roberta GerasiaRadiology Unit, Mediterranean Institute for Transplantation and Advanced Specialized Therapies, Palermo, Italy.
Chiara MartiniDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University Hospital of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Patrizia CornacchioneUOC Oncological Radiotherapy, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Oncological Radiotherapy and Hematology, A. Gemelli University Hospital Foundation, Mediterranean Institute for Transplantation and Advanced Specialized Therapies, Rome, Italy.
Matteo CeccarelliDepartment of Physics, University of Cagliari, Calgiari, Italy.
Dante ChiappinoDepartment of Radiology, Institute of Clinical Physiology of the Italian National Research Council /Tuscany Region "Gabriele Monasterio Foundation," Massa, Italy.
Daniele Della LattaMonasterio Foundation, Tuscany Region "Gabriele Monasterio Foundation, Massa, Italy.
Jacopo NegriDepartment of Radiology, Macerata Hospital, Macerata, Italy.
Donatella PertoldiCardiovascular Diagnosis and Endoluminal Interventions Unit, Rovigo General Hospital, Rovigo, Italy.
Donato NegroDepartment of Medicine-DIMED University Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Giovanni NuzziSantAnna and San Sebastiano Hospital, Caserta, Italy.
Vincenzo RizzoNuclear Medicine Unit, San Giuseppe Moscati Hospital, Avellino, Italy.
Paola TamburrinoFoggia United Hospitals, University Hospital of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Chiara PozzessereRadiology Unit, AUSL Toscana Centro San Giuseppe Hospital, Empoli, Italy.
Giacomo AringhieriDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Davide CaramellaDiagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Although imaging has become a standard tool of modern medicine, its widespread use has been paralleled by an increasing cumulative radiation dose to patients despite technological advancements and campaigns calling for better awareness and minimization of unnecessary exposures. Objective: To assess patients' knowledge about medical radiation and related risks. Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey study of hospitals in Italy was conducted; all patients in waiting rooms for medical imaging procedures before undergoing imaging examinations at 16 teaching and nonteaching hospitals were approached to take the survey. The survey was performed from June 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey respondents' basic knowledge of ionizing radiation levels and health risks, earlier imaging tests performed, and information and communication about radiation protection issues. Results: Among 3039 patients invited to participate, the response rate was 94.3% (n = 2866). Participants included 1531 women (53.4%); mean (SD) age was 44.9 (17.3) years. Of the 2866 participants, 1529 (53.3%) were aware of the existence of natural sources of ionizing radiation. Mammography (1101 [38.4%]) and magnetic resonance imaging (1231 [43.0%]) were categorized as radiation-based imaging modalities. More than half of the 2866 patients (1579 [55.1%]; P = .03) did not know that chest computed tomography delivers a larger dose of radiation than chest radiography, and only 1499 (52.3%) knew that radiation can be emitted after nuclear medicine examinations (P = .004). A total of 667 patients (23.3%) believed that radiation risks were unrelated to age, 1273 (44.4%) deemed their knowledge about radiation risks inadequate, and 2305 (80.4%) preferred to be informed about radiation risks by medical staff. A better knowledge of radiation issues was associated with receiving information from health care professionals (odds ratio [OR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.43-2.03; P < .001) and having a higher educational level (intermediate vs low: OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.17-1.88; P < .001; high vs low: OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 2.09-3.43; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this survey suggest that patients undergoing medical imaging procedures have overall limited knowledge about medical radiation. Intervention to achieve better patient awareness of radiation risks related to medical exposures may be beneficial.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePerceptionRadiation, IonizingAdultFemaleHumansItalyMaleMiddle AgedPatientsRadiation ExposureSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID34643721
PMCPMC8515210

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.