Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40011223›Full record

ReviewJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025

Expert panel on monitoring radiation doses from recurrent medical diagnostic procedures: Sixth Gilbert W. Beebe Webinar.

Donald P Frush, Armin Ansari, James A Brink, Ourania Kosti, David B Larson, Martha S Linet, Mahadevappa Mahesh, Ioannis Sechopoulos, Jenia Vassileva

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Donald P FrushPediatric Radiology, Children's Health Center, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Armin AnsariRadiation Studies Section, Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice/NCEH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
James A BrinkDepartments of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ourania KostiNuclear and Radiation Studies Board, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington DC, USA.
David B LarsonDepartment of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Martha S LinetDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Mahadevappa MaheshRadiological Physics Division, The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9370-3973
Ioannis SechopoulosDepartment of Medical Imaging, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jenia VassilevaRadiation Protection of Patients Unit, Division of Radiation, Transport and Waste Safety, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recurrent imaging is an essential tool for patient care but with an attendant dose from radiation exposure. Recurrent imaging has been the subject of increasing scrutiny and debate based largely on the risk from increasing cumulative doses. However, the accountability for and actions with recurrent imaging as a special component in the general construct of radiation protection in medicine is unclear. This is demonstrated by the perspectives provided by the various imaging community experts. Some perspectives may be different, but many share a common ground. Understanding these various perspectives illustrates the wide-ranging optics in considering benefits and costs in the recurrent imaging paradigm and, moreover, the value in pursuing multi-stakeholder-derived harmonization for recurrent imaging and radiation dose. This move towards consensus would be to the benefit of the imaging community, referrers, and other related healthcare professionals, as well as patients, their caregivers, and the public.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingPractice Guidelines as TopicRadiation ExposureRadiation MonitoringRadiation ProtectionHumansRadiation Dosagediagnostic imagingradiationradiation monitoring

Identifiers

PMID40011223
PMCPMC11969083

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.