ArticleThe British journal of radiology2022
Informed consent for stochastic effects of ionising radiation in diagnostic imaging.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Requesting Diagnostic Imaging in Nurse Practitioner Practice: Results of a National Survey.Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Observational
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
The ethical and legal principles underpinning the requirement for informed consent for medical procedures are widely accepted. A recent BJR article has applied these principles to the issue of consent to ionising radiation (IR) from diagnostic imaging (DI), but the authors chose to put aside the practical problems associated with this. These problems should not be underestimated and arise from: uncertainties about the existence and magnitude of risk of stochastic effects of IR exposure in DI; the delayed manifestation of its effects; the heterogeneity of risk related to factors associated with individual sensitivity to IR, and dose variation even within examination classes and across clinical indications; and the difficulty of communication of these uncertainties and variations to patients. This article discusses these practical issues associated with consent for IR in DI.
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.