ArticleFrontiers in nuclear medicine2024
Case Report: Radiopharmaceutical extravasation, radiation paranoia, and chilling effect.
Article in Frontiers in nuclear medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging (SNMMI) has publicly commented that they do not support the reporting of large extravasations to patients or regulatory bodies. The comment cites recently published articles suggesting that extravasations are infrequent and not severe. The comment stresses the importance of ensuring patients are not apprehensive or resistant to nuclear medicine procedures because of "radiation paranoia" and a "chilling effect" that can result from misinformation. Radiation paranoia and chilling effect are not defined, and there are no references to specific misinformation. Our experiences and this case suggest the comment may be incongruent with real-world clinical experiences. Our severe case, at a center with a long-standing focus on reducing radiopharmaceutical extravasation, suggests these events can still happen, can be significant, and should be shared with our patients. Our experiences also suggest that being transparent with patients builds trust. We are concerned that a reluctance to recognize the true frequency of extravasations and their severity may create distrust in the relationship between the nuclear medicine community and patients.
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.