ReviewEuropean journal of radiology2024
Understanding the risk of ionizing radiation in breast imaging: Concepts and quantities, clinical importance, and future directions.
Review in European journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Electrical Property Enhancement of a Breast-Fat-Equivalent Phantom for Microwave Mammography.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Managing healthcare for female BRCA carriers in the population screening era: developing a harmonized national policy for surveillance and risk-reduction.Israel journal of health policy research · 2026Article
- Communicating radiation risk in healthcare: an ethical imperative amidst scientific uncertainty.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Establishing Diagnostic Reference Levels in Digital Mammography from Eight Mammography Units Using over 30,000 Images.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Assessing Mean Glandular Dose in Mammography in Jordan According to American College of Radiology (ACR) Standards.Cancer management and research · 2025Article
- Breast Glandularity Distribution and Refining the Mean Glandular Dose Estimates in Digital Mammography.Journal of medical physicsArticle
- Breast cancer in women 40-50 and over 70 years of age: the need for screening in Brazil.Radiologia brasileiraReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConventional mammography remains the primary imaging modality for state-of-the-art breast imaging practice and its benefit (both on diagnostic and screening) was largely reported. In mammography, the typical Mean Glandular Dose (MGD) from X-ray radiation to the breast spans, on average, from 1 to 10 mGy, depending on breast thicknesses, percentage of fibroglandular tissue, and on the examination purpose.
methodsThe aim of this narrative review is to describe the extent of radiation risk in X-ray breast imaging and discuss the main steps and parameters (e.g. MGD, screening frequency and number of examination views) that may have an influence on the radiation risk assessment.
resultsEven though the radiation doses used with these examinations are very low, as compared to other medical or natural radiation exposures, there is a non-negligible associated risk of radiation-induced cancer. Accurate radiation risk assessment permits to better balance the overall estimation of the benefit-to-risk ratio in X-ray breast imaging.
conclusionsIt is expected that a better knowledge about radiation-induced cancer risk among population could improve the communications skills between patients and clinicians and could help to increase the awareness in women about radiation risk perception for a transparent and proper informed choice of imaging exam.
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.