ReviewCureus2023
Radiology's Ionising Radiation Paradox: Weighing the Indispensable Against the Detrimental in Medical Imaging.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of radiation safety competencies and academic preparedness among final-year nursing students in Saudi Arabia.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Beyond radiation dosimetry: metabolic burden and a possible healthy worker survivor pattern in the medical imaging workforce.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Awareness and Understanding of Ionizing and Non-Ionizing Radiation Modalities Among Patients in Saudi Arabia.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Computed Tomography Diagnostic Reference Levels Worldwide and in Jordan: Implications for Patient Dose Reduction.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2026Review
- Associations between fear of medical imaging radiation, risk perception, and patient decisional conflict: evidence from variable-centered and person-centered analyses.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Chest Equivalent Dose as a Symbolic Radiation Communication Tool: Leadership Implications for Nurses' Knowledge, Anxiety, and Risk Attribution.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2026Article
- Review
- Virtual Non-Contrast Reconstructions Derived from Dual-Energy CTA Scans in Peripheral Arterial Disease: Comparison with True Non-Contrast Images and Impact on Radiation Dose.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Variability Between Radiation-Induced Cancer Risk Models in Estimating Oncogenic Risk in Intensive Care Unit Patients.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Observational
- Senolytic agent ABT-263 mitigates low- and high-LET radiation-induced gastrointestinal cancer development inAging · 2025Article
- Review
- Radiation Overuse in Intensive Care Units.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ionising radiation stands as an indispensable protagonist in the narrative of medical imaging, underpinning diagnostic evaluations and therapeutic interventions across an array of medical conditions. However, this protagonist poses a paradox - its inestimable service to medicine coexists with an undercurrent of potential health risks, primarily DNA damage and subsequent oncogenesis. The narrative of this comprehensive review unfurls around this intricate enigma, delicately balancing the indispensable diagnostic utility against the non-negotiable commitment to patient safety. In this critical discourse, the intricacies of ionising radiation are dissected, illuminating not only its sources but also the associated biological and health hazards. The exploration delves into the labyrinth of strategies currently deployed to minimise exposure and safeguard patients. By casting light on the scientific nuances of X-rays, computed tomography (CT), and nuclear medicine, it traverses the complex terrain of radiation use in radiology, to promote safer medical imaging practices, and to facilitate an ongoing dialogue about diagnostic necessity and risk. Through a rigorous examination, the pivotal relationship between radiation dose and dose response is elucidated, unravelling the mechanisms of radiation injury and distinguishing between deterministic and stochastic effects. Moreover, protection strategies are illuminated, demystifying concepts such as justification, optimisation, the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principle, dose and diagnostic reference levels, along with administrative and regulatory approaches. With an eye on the horizon, promising avenues of future research are discussed. These encompass low-radiation imaging techniques, long-term risk assessment in large patient cohorts, and the transformative potential of artificial intelligence in dose optimisation. This exploration of the nuanced complexities of radiation use in radiology aims to foster a collaborative impetus towards safer medical imaging practices. It underscores the need for an ongoing dialogue around diagnostic necessity and risk, thereby advocating for a continual reassessment in the narrative of medical imaging.
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.