ArticleBMJ open2012
International Atomic Energy Agency study with referring physicians on patient radiation exposure and its tracking: a prospective survey using a web-based questionnaire.
Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiation Safety in Children With Congenital and Acquired Heart Disease: A Scientific Position Statement on Multimodality Dose Optimization From the Image Gently Alliance.JACC. Cardiovascular imaging · 2017Guideline
- Current Trends in Computed Tomography Practices in Japan and the Role of Referring Physicians in Radiation Exposure Management.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2025Article
- Radiation Exposure to Low-Dose Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening: Should We Be Concerned?Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Review
- Awareness of Medical Radiologic Technologists of Ionizing Radiation and Radiation Protection.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The cumulative radiation dose paradigm in pediatric imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Contemporary issues in radiation protection in medical imaging: introductory editorial.The British journal of radiology · 2021Article
- Radiation risk issues in recurrent imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Multicentric study of patients receiving 50 or 100 mSv in a single day through CT imaging-frequency determination and imaging protocols involved.European radiology · 2021Article
- High-Dose Fluoroscopically Guided Procedures in Patients: Radiation Management Recommendations for Interventionalists.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2021Review
- Analysis of patients receiving ≥ 100 mSv during a computed tomography intervention.European radiology · 2021Article
- Challenges for managing the cumulative effective dose for patients.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Patient cumulative radiation exposure-the potential for unintended consequences.European radiology · 2020Article
- Computed tomography use in a large Italian region: trend analysis 2004-2014 of emergency and outpatient CT examinations in children and adults.European radiology · 2018Article
- Radiation dose management for pediatric cardiac computed tomography: a report from the Image Gently 'Have-A-Heart' campaign.Pediatric radiology · 2018Review
- Perceptions of patients and providers on myocardial perfusion imaging for asymptomatic patients, choosing wisely, and professional liability.BMC health services research · 2017Article
- Radiation safety awareness among medical interns: are EU guidelines being implemented?Irish journal of medical science · 2017Article
- Patient radiation exposure and dose tracking: a perspective.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2017Review
- Review of the current status of radiation protection in diagnostic radiology in Africa.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2017Review
- Rapid Collection of Opinions from Healthcare Professionals in Multiple Institutions Using Short Message Service and Google Forms.Healthcare informatics research · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the following themes among referring physicians: (A) importance of acquiring information about previous diagnostic exposures; (B) knowledge about radiation doses involved, familiarity with radiation units and, age-related radiosensitivity; (C) opinion on whether patients should be provided information about radiation dose and (D) self-assessment of appropriateness of referrals.
designA prospective survey using a web-based questionnaire.
settingInternational survey among referring physicians.
participantsReferring physicians from 28 countries.
main outcome measuresKnowledge, opinion and practice of the four themes of the survey.
resultsAll 728 responses from 28 countries (52.3% from developed and 47.7% from developing countries) indicated that while the vast majority (71.7%) of physicians feel that being aware of history of CT scans would always or mostly lead them to a better decision on referring patients for CT scans, only 43.4% often enquire about it. The majority of referring physicians (60.5%) stated that having a system that provides quick information about patient exposure history would be useful. The knowledge about radiation doses involved is poor, as only one-third (34.7%) of respondents chose the correct option of the number of chest x-rays with equivalence of a CT scan. In total, 70.9% of physicians stated that they do not feel uncomfortable when patients ask about radiation risk from CT scans they prescribe. Most physicians (85.6%) assessed that they have rarely prescribed CT scans of no clinical use in patient management.
conclusionsThis first ever multinational survey among referring physicians from 28 countries indicates support for a system that provides radiation exposure history of the patient, demonstrates poor knowledge about radiation doses, supports radiation risk communication with patients and mandatory provisions for justification of a CT examination.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.