ArticleEuropean radiology2025
Radiation exposure and estimated risk of radiation-induced cancer from thoracic and abdominal radiographs in 1307 neonates.
Article in European radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurodevelopmental impact of early diagnostic imaging in preterm infants: quantifying risk and the role of point-of-care ultrasound.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Application of a modified lung ultrasound score in assessing the severity of neonatal pneumonia: a multicenter prospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study examined radiation exposure and the possible risk of radiation-induced cancer in a large sample of newborn and premature patients. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this retrospective study, we included all hospitalised neonates treated at our university hospital who received at least one X-ray examination from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2018. We evaluated the dose area product (DAP), effective dose (ED), and estimated risk. The International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication 60 defines values (2.8-13 × 10
resultsOf the 3843 patients (aged 241.1 ± 35.45 days) treated in the neonatal care unit, 1307 (34%) received at least one X-ray. The mean number of X-ray examinations per patient was 3.19 and correlated negatively with birth weight. The mean cumulative DAP was 5.9 mGy*cm
conclusionThere is a strong correlation between immaturity, the number of X-ray examinations, and radiation exposure. The total exposure was minimal, and the number of X-rays per patient has been decreasing in recent years. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Possible risks to newborns and premature infants caused by ionising X-rays are often the subject of scientific and clinical discussion. Nevertheless, conventional X-ray imaging remains a frequently used tool, and total exposure remains at a very low level. KEY POINTS: The number of X-rays per patient has been decreasing in a large university hospital. Half of all patients received only one X-ray; most had a birth weight over 1500 g. This radiation risk can be classified as 'minimal' for patients with a birth weight of < 500 g and as 'negligible' for others.
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.