ReviewNeuroradiology2024
Go Green in Neuroradiology: towards reducing the environmental impact of its practice.
Review in Neuroradiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Choosing wisely in neuroradiology: evaluating CT and MR utilization trends in Europe.European radiology · 2026Pooled it
- ESR Essentials: gadolinium-wise MRI-practice recommendations by the European Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine and Biology.European radiology · 2025Guideline
- Unpacking the problem-the hidden waste in neurointerventional procedures: quantifying packaging waste in neurointerventional supply chains.Journal of neurointerventional surgery · 2026Observational
- Use of gadolinium-based contrast agents in head and neck cancer diagnosis, staging, and monitoring: current applications and future perspectives.European radiology · 2026Review
- Advancing circular economy practices in radiography: a narrative review of sustainable medical imaging.Translational cancer research · 2025Review
- Reconsidering gadolinium in long-term glioma follow-up: is contrast always and unquestionably necessary?European radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Raising public awareness about the relevance of supporting sustainable practices is required owing to the phenomena of global warming caused by the rising production of greenhouse gases. The healthcare sector generates a relevant proportion of the total carbon emissions in developed countries, and radiology is estimated to be a major contributor to this carbon footprint. Neuroradiology markedly contributes to this negative environmental effect, as this radiological subspecialty generates a high proportion of diagnostic and interventional imaging procedures, the majority of them requiring high energy-intensive equipment. Therefore, neuroradiologists and neuroradiological departments are especially responsible for implementing decisions and initiatives able to reduce the unfavourable environmental effects of their activities, by focusing on four strategic pillars-reducing energy, water, and helium use; properly recycling and/or disposing of waste and residues (including contrast media); encouraging environmentally friendly behaviour; and reducing the effects of ionizing radiation on the environment. The purpose of this article is to alert neuroradiologists about their environmental responsibilities and to analyse the most productive strategic axes, goals, and lines of action that contribute to reducing the environmental impact associated with their professional activities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38353699What 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.