SynthesisBMC cancer2022
CT Scans and Cancer Risks: A Systematic Review and Dose-response Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 79 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
79 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 153 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring the impact of artificial intelligence on radiation dose reduction in urological imaging: a systematic review from EAU endourology.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis of granulomatous-lymphocytic interstitial lung disease in patients with common variable immunodeficiency disorders: an ERS Clinical Research Collaboration.The European respiratory journal · 2026Guideline
- Atherosclerosis after pre-eclampsia: systematic review and meta-analysis.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026Pooled it
- Circulating microRNAs in various etiopathogenetic subtypes of acute ischemic stroke: a human systematic review study.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Overutilization of head computed tomography in cases of mild traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Emergency radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Computed tomography-based radiostereometric analysis achieves sufficient precision for femoral implants in total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Trial
- Manganese-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging: From Translational Research to First-in-Human Trials in Oncology.Molecular diagnosis & therapy · 2026Review
- Risk stratification for significant acute traumatic intracranial hemorrhage in older adults after a ground-level fall: A prospective multicentre cohort study.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
- Personalized eye protection for head CT organ-based tube current modulation: A deep learning approach to derive 3D eyeball models from a single-view topogram.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Computed tomography findings in 11,504 adult patients with traumatic brain injury: a large real-world cohort study with a S100B subgroup analysis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2026Article
- LCPBert: ProtBERT-based early-stage lung cancer prediction from T cell receptor beta sequences.iScience · 2026Article
- Evaluation of optimal ClearInfinity artificial intelligence deep learning reconstruction algorithm weights with a 70-kVp tube voltage combined with "dual-low" abdominal computed tomography angiography.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Why Is Colorectal Cancer Occurring Earlier? Metabolic Dysfunction, Underrecognized Carcinogens, and Emerging Controversies.Current obesity reports · 2026Review
- Biopsy Needle Integrated with Rotational Oblique Spectral Ultrasound (ROSUS) Imaging.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Applications of Point of Care Ultrasound in Urology Residency Training: A Practical Framework for Curriculum Design and Implementation.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- Cancer risk associated with CT imaging: quantifying the evidence, addressing misconceptions, and optimizing risk communication.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2026Review
- Communicating radiation risk in healthcare: an ethical imperative amidst scientific uncertainty.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Contrast-specific conversion factor for accurate radiation dose estimation in contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2026Article
19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is still uncertainty on whether ionizing radiation from CT scans can increase the risks of cancer. This study aimed to identify the association of cumulative ionizing radiation from CT scans with pertaining cancer risks in adults.
methodsFive databases were searched from their inception to November 15, 2020. Observational studies reporting cancer risks from CT scans in adults were included. The main outcome included quantified cancer risks as cancer case numbers in exposed/unexposed adult participants with unified converted measures to odds ratio (OR) for relative risk, hazard ratio. Global background radiation (2.4 mSv per year) was used as control for lifetime attribution risk (LAR), with the same period from incubation after exposure until survival to 100 years.
results25 studies were included with a sum of 111,649,943 participants (mean age: 45.37 years, 83.4% women), comprising 2,049,943 actual participants from 6 studies with an average follow-up period as 30.1 years (range, 5 to 80 years); 109,600,000 participants from 19 studies using LAR. The cancer risks for adults following CT scans were inordinately increased (LAR adults, OR, 10.00 [95% CI, 5.87 to 17.05]; actual adults, OR, 1.17 [95%CI, 0.89 to 1.55]; combined, OR, 5.89 [95%CI, 3.46 to 10.35]). Moreover, cancer risks elevated with increase of radiation dose (OR, 33.31 [95% CI, 21.33 to 52.02]), and multiple CT scan sites (OR, 14.08 [95% CI, 6.60 to 30.05]). The risk of solid malignancy was higher than leukemia. Notably, there were no significant differences for age, gender, country, continent, study quality and studying time phrases.
conclusionsBased on 111.6 million adult participants from 3 continents (Asia, Europe and America), this meta-analysis identifies an inordinately increase in cancer risks from CT scans for adults. Moreover, the cancer risks were positively correlated with radiation dose and CT sites. The meta-analysis highlights the awareness of potential cancer risks of CT scans as well as more reasonable methodology to quantify cancer risks in terms of life expectancy as 100 years for LAR. PROSPERO TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019133487.
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.