ReviewMedicine international
Recommendations for reducing exposure to medical X-ray irradiation (Review).
Review in Medicine international. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiation exposure and fluoroscopy time in AVNRT ablation: role of 3D electroanatomical mapping.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
- Utility and Challenges of Imaging in Peripheral Vestibular Disorder Diagnosis: A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Who Does What in Hand Osteoarthritis Care? A Qualitative Study of Boundary Work Between Rheumatologists and Occupational Therapists in Norway.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Quality Indicators for Pediatric Bronchiolitis and Croup Care in the Emergency Department; a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2024Review
- Cervical Spine Instability Screening Tool Thai Version: Assessment of Convergent Validity and Rater Reliability.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Global trends and hot topics in clinical applications of perovskite materials: a bibliometric analysis.Biomaterials translational · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With the increasing frequency of X-ray examinations in clinical medicine, public concern regarding the harm caused by exposure to X-ray radiation is also increasing. However, some physicians are not completely aware of the dangers of exposure to X-ray irradiation. Individuals specialized in this field, including physicians, have a better understanding of these dangers, which limits the use of X-rays in medicine. The present study aimed to address strategies for reducing the harm caused by exposure to medical X-rays and increase public awareness regarding X-ray radiation. Through a literature search and review, combined with the current status of clinical X-ray examination and the authors' professional experience, the present study highlights the importance of reducing X-ray exposure, and proposes several specific recommendations and measures for reducing the frequency or dose of X-ray irradiation. On the whole, the finding discussed in the present review suggest the minimal use of medical X-ray examinations and that alternative tests should be selected whenever possible. When medical X-ray screening and treatments are necessary, the risk-benefit ratio should be assessed, possibly aiming to achieve avoidable exposure. Further attention should be paid to protect sensitive glands and reduce the risks in children.
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.