ArticleWorld journal of methodology2022
Are we aware of radiation: A study about necessity of diagnostic X-ray exposure.
Article in World journal of methodology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multicenter evaluation of radiological and patient-reported outcomes following surgical treatment of acromioclavicular joint dislocations.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Article
- Emergency physicians' perceptions and optimization strategies for diagnostic imaging overuse in Somalia.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Radiation Dose Metrics and Local Diagnostic Reference Levels in Low-Dose Stent-Assisted Coiling of Intracranial Aneurysms.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Local Diagnostic Reference Levels for Intracranial Aneurysm Coil-Only Embolization Using a Low-Dose Technique.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Routine Early Post-operative X-Ray Following Partial Hip Replacement After Femoral Hip Fracture Is Unjustified: A Retrospective Study.Geriatric orthopaedic surgery & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of healthcare professionals toward radiation safety in Kazakhstan: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- The ability of memory CD8 T cell subsets to numerically and functionally recover following whole body irradiation is influenced by their history of cognate antigen exposures.Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) · 2025Article
- Knowledge and perceptions of ionising radiation among Croatian general practitioners: is there cause for concern?Arhiv za higijenu rada i toksikologiju · 2025Article
- Establishing Local Diagnostic Reference Levels for Head Computed Tomography Examinations.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Does the use of computed tomography scenogram alone enable diagnosis in cases of bowel obstruction?World journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Cervical Spine Instability Screening Tool Thai Version: Assessment of Convergent Validity and Rater Reliability.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Antenatal imaging: A pictorial review.World journal of clinical cases · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTotal exposure to ionizing radiation has nearly doubled in the last two decades. This increase is primarily due to increased computed tomography (CT) exposure. Concerns have been raised about the risks associated with patients' exposure to medical imaging radiation, which can increase a person's lifetime risk of developing cancer. Preventing unnecessary examinations becomes critical at this point. To avoid unnecessary examinations, it is necessary to understand the demanding process.
aimTo ascertain clinicians' awareness of and reasons for requesting a CT examination.
methodsWe developed an online questionnaire that included 20 questions about clinicians' awareness of radiation safety and their reasons for requesting a CT examination, as well as demographic information such as age, gender, and year of medical practice experience. Additionally, we asked participants the number of CT scans requested in a month, the patients' questions and approaches about the imaging method, the effect of the patient's previous imaging history on the current imaging request, whether they believed that they had sufficient information about radiation doses, and whether they requested CT without an indication. We administered the questionnaire to clinicians from a variety of different professions in four different cities.
resultsA total of 195 clinicians participated. Internal medicine specialists were the most crowded group (38/195, 19.5%). Mean age of the population was 33.66 ± 5.92 years. Mean year of experience was 9.01 ± 5.96. Mean number of requested CT scans in a month was 36.88 ± 5.86. Forty-five (23.1%) participants stated that they requested CT scans without clinical indication. The most common reasons for CT scan requests were work load, fear of malpractice, and patient demand/insistence.
conclusionCT scan requests are influenced by a variety of factors, both internal and external to the doctors and patients. Raising awareness of radiation safety and reducing fear of malpractice by limiting the number of patients per physician may result in a reduction in unnecessary CT examinations and ionizing radiation exposure.
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.