Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36933026›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2023

Effects of ionizing radiation exposure during pregnancy.

James G Mainprize, Martin J Yaffe, Tanya Chawla, Phyllis Glanc

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. [Endoscopy during pregnancy].Zeitschrift fur Gastroenterologie · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Pregnancy-Related Cardiovascular Diseases: A Radiological Overview.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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.

James G MainprizePhysical Sciences Platform, Sunnybrook Research Institute, 2075 Bayview Ave., Rm S632/S657, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada. james.mainprize@sri.utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5479-1280
Martin J YaffePhysical Sciences Platform, Sunnybrook Research Institute, 2075 Bayview Ave., Rm S632/S657, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7227-9915
Tanya ChawlaJoint Department of Medical Imaging, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, 600 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X5, Canada.
Phyllis GlancDepartments Medical Imaging, Obstetrics & Gynecology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Rm MG 160, Toronto, ON, M4N 3M5, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2480-6714

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo review the effects of ionizing radiation to the conceptus and the relationship to the timing of the exposure during pregnancy. To consider strategies that would mitigate potential harms associated with exposure to ionizing radiation during pregnancy.

methodsData reported in the peer-reviewed literature on entrance KERMA received from specific radiological examinations were combined with published results from experiment or Monte Carlo modeling of tissue and organ doses per entrance KERMA to estimate total doses that could be received from specific procedures. Data reported in the peer-reviewed literature on dose mitigation strategies, best practices for shielding, consent, counseling and emerging technologies were reviewed.

resultsFor procedures utilizing ionizing radiation for which the conceptus is not included in the primary radiation beam, typical doses are well below the threshold for causing tissue reactions and the risk of induction of childhood cancer is low. For procedures that include the conceptus in the primary radiation field, longer fluoroscopic interventional procedures or multiphase/multiple exposures potentially could approach or exceed thresholds for tissue reactions and the risk of cancer induction must be weighed against the expected risk/benefit of performing (or not) the imaging examination. Gonadal shielding is no longer considered best practice. Emerging technologies such as whole-body DWI/MRI, dual-energy CT and ultralow dose studies are gaining importance for overall dose reduction strategies.

conclusionThe ALARA principle, considering potential benefits and risks should be followed with respect to the use of ionizing radiation. Nevertheless, as Wieseler et al. (2010) state, "no examination should be withheld when an important clinical diagnosis is under consideration." Best practices require updates on current available technologies and guidelines.

Indexed as

FetusRadiation ExposureFemaleHumansPregnancyRadiation DosageRadiation, IonizingRadiographyEmbryoFetusIonizing radiationPregnancyRadiation effectsTeratogenesis

Identifiers

PMID36933026
PMCPMC10024285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.