ArticleBMJ open2016
Evaluation of clinicians' knowledge and practices regarding medical radiological exposure: findings from a mixed-methods investigation (survey and qualitative study).
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiation Safety Knowledge, Perceptions, and Self-Reported Practices Among Healthcare Workers in Radiology and Nuclear Medicine: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Assessing Patient Awareness and Misconceptions Regarding MRI Radiation Risks in China: A Questionnaire Study.Nursing open · 2026Article
- Knowledge and perceptions of ionising radiation among Croatian general practitioners: is there cause for concern?Arhiv za higijenu rada i toksikologiju · 2025Article
- Assessing context and readiness of emergency medicine physicians to promote evidence-based imaging referral guidelines: a mixed-methods study.Translational behavioral medicine · 2025Article
- Pelvic radiation dose measurement for trauma patients in multifield radiographic examinations: A phantom-based TLD dosimetry study.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Gender Differences in the Impact of Recommendations on Diagnostic Imaging Tests: A Retrospective Study 2007-2021.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Underestimation of Radiation Doses by Compliance of Wearing Dosimeters among Fluoroscopically-Guided Interventional Medical Workers in Korea.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Cumulative exposure to ionising radiation from diagnostic imaging tests: a 12-year follow-up population-based analysis in Spain.BMJ open · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the impact of initiatives aiming to increase clinician awareness of radiation exposure; to explore the challenges they face when communicating with patients; to study what they think is the most appropriate way of communicating the long-term potential risks of medical radiological exposure to patients.
designA quantitative and qualitative evaluation through a survey and focal groups.
settingSan Juan Hospital and Dr Peset Hospital (Southeast Spain) and clinicians from Spanish scientific societies.
participantsThe surveys were answered (a) in person (216: all the radiologists (30), urologists (14) and surgeons (44) working at both participant hospitals; a sample of general practitioners from the catchment area of one hospital (45), and a consecutive sample of radiologists attending a scientific meeting (60)) or (b) electronically through Spanish scientific societies (299: radiologists (45), pneumologists (123), haematologists (75) and surgeons (40)). Clinicians were not randomly selected and thus the results are limited by the diligence of the individuals filling out the survey. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinicians' knowledge and practices regarding medical radiological exposure, and what they considered most appropriate for communicating information to patients.
resultsNearly 80% of the clinicians surveyed had never heard of the European recommendations. Fewer than 20% of the clinicians surveyed identified correctly the radiation equivalence dose of intravenous urography or barium enema. It was reported by 31.7% that they inform patients about the long-term potential risks of ionising radiation. All participants agreed that the most appropriate way to present information is a table with a list of imaging tests and their corresponding radiation equivalence dose in terms of chest X-rays and background radiation exposure.
conclusionsMedical radiological exposure is frequently underestimated and rarely explained to patients. With a clear understanding of medical radiological exposure and proper communication tools, clinicians will be able to accurately inform patients.
Indexed as
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.