ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Diagnostic reference levels in interventional neuroradiology: a scoping review.
Article in European radiology, 2026. 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
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo review the literature on diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in interventional neuroradiology (INR), summarise reported dose values, and examine the methodologies used for their establishment. MATERIALS AND
methodsA scoping review was conducted using SCOPUS, Web of Science, PubMed, and ProQuest. Studies reporting DRLs for INR diagnostic procedures (cerebral angiography, (CA)) and therapeutic procedures (stroke thrombectomy, (ST); aneurysm coiling, (AC); arteriovenous malformation/fistula (AVM/AVF) embolisation) were included. Extracted data comprised dose metrics, sample size, percentile definition, procedure classification, and statistical approaches used for DRL derivation.
resultsThirty-nine studies reported DRLs for air kerma-area product (P
conclusionDRLs in INR show substantial variability, partly driven by methodological inconsistencies. Greater standardisation of DRL derivation and reporting is needed to support harmonisation and optimisation. KEY POINTS: Question How does the lack of international consensus on interventional neuroradiology (INR) diagnostic reference levels (DRLs), alongside inconsistent reporting, hinder benchmarking, optimisation, and radiation protection? Findings DRLs are reported for major INR procedures, but vary widely across studies and procedure types. Clinical relevance Differences in dose metrics, procedure classification, and data collection hinder comparison and benchmarking between centres. Standardised methods and harmonised reporting are crucial for effective dose optimisation and radiation protection in INR. Consistency in deriving DRLs would enable reliable benchmarking and support future registry-based initiatives.
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.