ReviewEuropean radiology2024
Recurrent medical imaging exposures for the care of patients: one way forward.
Review in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- European multicenter study on recurrent imaging practice in computed tomography.The British journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Analysis of deep learning-based segmentation of lymph nodes on full-dose and reduced-dose body CT.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Cumulative dose in pediatric CT "frequent flyers": cohort results and risk review.Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- Commentary on Westra et al. "Cumulative dose in pediatric CT "frequent flyers": cohort results and risk review".Pediatric radiology · 2026Article
- 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
- Are CT scans dangerous? A plea for a clinical safety culture in radiation protection.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2025Article
- Translational approaches for radiation protection: treating patients, not their images.European radiology · 2025Article
- Expert panel on monitoring radiation doses from recurrent medical diagnostic procedures: Sixth Gilbert W. Beebe Webinar.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Review
- Radiation exposure in recurrent medical imaging: identifying drivers and high-risk populations.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Medical imaging is both valuable and essential in the care of patients. Much of this imaging depends on ionizing radiation with attendant responsibilities for judicious use when performing an examination. This responsibility applies in settings of both individual as well as multiple (recurrent) imaging with associated repeated radiation exposures. In addressing the roles and responsibilities of the medical communities in the paradigm of recurrent imaging, both the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) have issued position statements, each affirmed by other organizations. The apparent difference in focus and approach has resulted in a lack of clarity and continued debate. Aiming towards a coherent approach in dealing with radiation exposure in recurrent imaging, the IAEA convened a panel of experts, the purpose of which was to identify common ground and reconcile divergent perspectives. The effort has led to clarifying recommendations for radiation exposure aspects of recurrent imaging, including the relevance of patient agency and the provider-patient covenant in clinical decision-making. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: An increasing awareness, generating some lack of clarity and divergence in perspectives, with patients receiving relatively high radiation doses (e.g., ≥ 100 mSv) from recurrent imaging warrants a multi-stakeholder accord for the benefit of patients, providers, and the imaging community. KEY POINTS: • Recurrent medical imaging can result in an accumulation of exposures which exceeds 100 milli Sieverts. • Professional organizations have different perspectives on roles and responsibilities for recurrent imaging. • An expert panel reconciles differing perspectives for addressing radiation exposure from recurrent medical imaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38592419What 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.