Changing the practice of routine gonadal shielding during radiography: 'Y'?

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. [Imaging in hip disorders in childhood and adolescence].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
   Review
2. From Evidence to Practice: Implementation and Evaluation of the Discontinuation of Patient Contact Shielding in Paediatric Radiography.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026
   Article
3. Update on imaging recommendations in paediatric uroradiology: the European Society of Paediatric Radiology workgroup session on voiding cystourethrography.Pediatric radiology · 2024
   Review
4. [Imaging in pediatric traumatology and orthopedics].Operative Orthopadie und Traumatologie · 2024
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as