Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35470230›Full record

ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2022

Making decisions about radiological imaging in pregnancy.

Rebecca Wiles, Beth Hankinson, Emily Benbow, Andrew Sharp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Splenic vein rupture in pregnancy: A case report and systematic review of the literature.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Tuberculosis in Pregnancy: An Updated Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Colon Cancer and Pregnancy.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Rebecca WilesDepartment of radiology, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Beth HankinsonDepartment of radiology, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, UK.
Emily BenbowLiverpool Babies Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement Group, Department of women's and children's health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Andrew SharpDepartment of women's and children's health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK A.Sharp@liverpool.ac.uk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingRadiologyDecision MakingFemaleHumansPregnancyRadiography

Identifiers

PMID35470230
PMCPMC9036096

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.