ArticleBMJ open2019
Cumulative exposure to ionising radiation from diagnostic imaging tests: a 12-year follow-up population-based analysis in Spain.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidence and Mortality Life-Attributable Risks for Patients Subjected to Recurrent CT Examinations and Cumulative Effective Dose Exceeding 100 mSv.Clinics and practice · 2024Article
- 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
- Appropriateness of radiological diagnostic tests in otolaryngology.Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- Elimination of biological and physical artifacts in abdomen and brain computed tomography procedures using filtering techniques.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2022Article
- The cumulative radiation dose paradigm in pediatric imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Radiation protection perspective to recurrent medical imaging: what is known and what more is needed?The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Neural classification of Norwegian radiology reports: using NLP to detect findings in CT-scans of children.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Observational
- Image quality and radiation dose reduction in chest CT in pulmonary infection.La Radiologia medica · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo calculate each patient's cumulative radiation exposure and the recurrent tests during a 12-year study period, according to sex and age, in routine practice.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingA general hospital with a catchment population of 224 751 people, in the Southeast of Spain.
participantsPopulation belonged to the catchment area of that hospital in 2007. We collected all consecutive diagnostic imaging tests undergone by this population until 31 December 2018. We excluded: imaging tests that did not involve radiation exposure.
main outcome measuresThe cumulative effective dose and the recurrent imaging tests by sex and age at entry of study.
resultsOf the 224 751 people, 154 520 (68.8%) underwent an imaging test. The population had 1 335 752 imaging tests during the period of study: 1 110 077 (83.0%) plain radiography; 156 848 (11.8%) CT; 63 157 (4.8%) fluoroscopy and 5670 (0.4%) interventional radiography. 25.4% of the patients who had a CT, underwent five or more CTs (5.4% in the 0-20 years age group). The median total cumulative effective dose was 2.10 mSv (maximum 3980.30) and 16.30 mSv (maximum 1419.30 mSv) if we considered only doses associated with CT. Women received more effective dose than men (median 2.38 vs median 1.90, p<0.001). A total of 7142 (4.6%) patients received more than 50 mSv, with differences in men and women (p<0.001) and 2.5% of the patients in the 0-20 years age group, if we considered only doses associated with CT.
conclusionsNearly 5% of patients received doses higher than 50 mSv during the 12-year period of study and 2.5% of the patients in the 0-20 years age group, if we considered only doses associated with CT. The rate of recurrent examinations was high, especially in older patients, but also relevant in the 0-20 years age group.
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.