ReviewFrontiers in public health2026
Communicating radiation risk in healthcare: an ethical imperative amidst scientific uncertainty.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The integration of ionizing radiation into modern clinical medicine underscores a critical, yet frequently inadequately addressed, institutional responsibility: patient-centered risk communication. This review synthesizes current empirical literature on how radiation risks are articulated and understood across diagnostic and therapeutic settings, distinguishing between the low-dose diagnostic applications and high-dose therapeutic radiation. Evidence indicates that despite established ethical and regulatory mandates, effective risk dialogue remains severely compromised by entrenched public knowledge gaps, media-driven anxieties, patient stress, and a bidirectional miscalibration of risks, whereby routine imaging hazards are frequently overstated and therapeutic adverse effects underestimated. These patient-level vulnerabilities are further compounded by institutional constraints, including a historic lack of formalized communication training for radiographers and the persistent underutilization of validated visual tools. To resolve these friction points, this paper identifies evidence-based communicative strategies, favoring graded disclosure frameworks, plain-language environmental analogies, and visually optimized data representations utilizing natural frequencies over rigid, "one-size-fits-all" approaches.
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.