ReviewEuropean radiology2026
Balancing patients' benefits and risks in computed tomography: a European Society of Radiology 'EuroSafe Imaging' viewpoint.
Review in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension: A Systematic Review.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Utilization of whole-body computed tomography in trauma: The role of trauma center level and ACS verification.Surgery open science · 2026Article
- Greening computed tomography: a position paper on environmentally responsible imaging practice from the computed tomography subspecialty section of the Italian society of radiology.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- The impact of arm position on image quality and radiation dose in pediatric toddler chest computed tomography: a phantom and clinical study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
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
Every physician seeks to do more good than harm. A surgeon operates with the expectation that the benefits of the operation outweigh the risks associated with the surgery, leaving the patient in a better condition than before the procedure. Radiologists provide enormous benefits for patients-identifying diseases that could not otherwise be diagnosed or staging disease severity to allow for the most appropriate treatments to be undertaken. However, like any intervention, radiological studies are associated with risks; ionizing radiation may not be as apparent as a surgical site infection to patients or even other healthcare providers, but it carries inherent and cumulative risk and portends real hazard for patients. This article explores the responsibility of radiologists to champion appropriate imaging selection through rigorous justification of studies and protocol optimization when imaging is indicated. KEY POINTS: Irradiating patients for CT imaging provides tremendous diagnostic value, but is associated with an increased risk of cancer. The risk of CT-associated malignancies should be discussed with patients in an understandable way, considering individual- and population-level hazard. Strict application of the ALARA principle allows for maximizing benefits from imaging studies while minimizing harm.
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.