ArticleJAMA network open2021
Patient Perceptions and Knowledge of Ionizing Radiation From Medical Imaging.
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.
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
31 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiation-Related Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Medical Imaging Among the General Population in Iraq: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Patient Shielding in Computed Tomography: Analysis of Influencing Factors and a Conceptual Framework for Decision-Making.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Clinical fluorescent probes: mechanisms, advantages and inspirations.Chemical science · 2026Review
- Mechanical Thrombectomy as Stroke Management in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review.Stroke (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Social Perception of Natural Background Radiation and Its Implications for Public Health Communication.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Healing Beams: Radiation and Radiotherapy in Novels, Poems, Music, Film, Painting.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Review
- Sociodemographic factors associated with public awareness of medical radiation risks and safety practices in the West Bank, Palestine: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare professionals toward radiation safety in Kazakhstan: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Awareness and Understanding of Ionizing and Non-Ionizing Radiation Modalities Among Patients in Saudi Arabia.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Assessment of Jordanian's Knowledge of the Risks of Radiation Exposure.Nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2025Article
- AI-Driven Advances in Low-Dose Imaging and Enhancement-A Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Assessment of Public Knowledge and Perceptions Toward Radiation Exposure Risks in Saudi Arabia: A Survey Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Knowledge and attitudes toward [BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice of cancer patients regarding radiotherapy and radiation protection.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Unnecessary Medical Imaging and Determinant Factors in a District Hospital of Iran: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2024Article
- Comparison of 96-kV and 120-kV cone-beam CT for the assessment of cochlear implants.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- ChatGPT versus Radiology Institutional Websites: Comparative Analysis of Radiation Protection Information Provided to Patients.Radiology · 2024Article
- Exploring pregnant individuals' counseling needs regarding urgent imaging to rule out pulmonary embolism.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2024Article
- Assessment of patients' knowledge and perceptions of MRI scans and safety in Saudi Arabia.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- 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 · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on byBeyond the2022
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.