Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40965682›Full record

ReviewEuropean radiology2026

Paradigm shift in the application of patient contact shielding: a balancing act between tradition and progress.

Till Schürmann, Friederike Lang, Annika Jakobi, Alexander Rau, Jakob Weiss, Katharina Mueller-Peltzer, Kristin Goller-Bruchmann, Wibke Uller, Christopher L Schlett, Fabian Bamberg and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

12 authors.

Till SchürmannDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Friederike LangDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Annika JakobiDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Alexander RauDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Jakob WeissDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Katharina Mueller-PeltzerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Kristin Goller-BruchmannDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Wibke UllerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Christopher L SchlettDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Fabian BambergDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Martin FiebichUniversity of Applied Sciences Mittelhessen, Faculty of Life Science Engineering, Institute of Medical Physics and Radiation Protection, Gießen, Germany.
Thomas SteinDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. thomas.stein@uniklinik-freiburg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDespite recommendations and guidelines on patient contact shielding in X-ray imaging, substantial uncertainties remain in clinical practice, particularly concerning computed tomography (CT) examinations and vulnerable groups such as pediatric and pregnant patients. This study identifies gaps in existing recommendations and offers a comprehensive statement of the actual risks and benefits associated with patient shielding. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted using Google Scholar and PubMed, alongside current national and international guidelines. Our special report focused on patient shielding in projection radiography, interventional radiology, and CT, with special emphasis on vulnerable patient groups sensitive to radiation exposure.

resultsCurrent research lacks robust, evidence-based data comparing the benefits and risks of patient shielding, especially in CT. In projection radiography and interventional radiology, patient shielding offers minimal benefits and may inadvertently increase radiation exposure due to interference with automatic exposure control or necessitate repeated examinations. This issue is particularly addressed in pediatric and pregnant patients. In CT, the benefits and risks are more complex, with substantial research gaps hindering informed decision-making.

conclusionTraditional and generalized recommendations for patient contact shielding do not adequately account for technological advancements and individual patient needs. The use of patient shielding should be reconsidered on a case-by-case basis, guided by evidence-based research. There is an urgent need for clinical studies to assess the benefits, and in particular the risks in real-world settings, facilitating the development of precise patient-specific guidelines. KEY POINTS: Question While patient shielding can increase radiation dose due to interference with automatic exposure controls, uncertainties persist regarding patient shielding in X-ray imaging practices. Findings There is marginal evidence of the clinical risks of patient shielding, and urgent needs exist for patient-specific evidence-based shielding guidelines. Clinical relevance By critically evaluating the ambiguous guidelines on patient shielding and highlighting the lack of evidence-based risks of patient shielding, this study argues for individualized, evidence-based practices to improve patient safety in clinical radiology.

Indexed as

Radiation ExposureRadiation ProtectionTomography, X-Ray ComputedChildFemaleHumansPregnancyRadiation DosageComputed TomographyInterventional radiologyPatient shieldingProjection radiographyRadiation protection

Identifiers

PMID40965682
PMCPMC12963150

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.