Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32219506›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2020

Patient cumulative radiation exposure-the potential for unintended consequences.

Colin Walsh, Geraldine O'Reilly, Dara Murphy

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Effects of ionizing radiation exposure during pregnancy.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Radiation risk issues in recurrent imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2021
    Review
  5. The cumulative radiation dose paradigm in pediatric imaging.The British journal of radiology · 2021
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Colin WalshMedical Physics & Clinical Engineering Department, St. James's Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland.
Geraldine O'ReillyMedical Physics & Clinical Engineering Department, St. James's Hospital, Dublin 8, Ireland.
Dara MurphyRadiology Department, Children's Health Ireland at Crumlin, Dublin 12, Ireland. dara.murphy@olchc.ie.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several recent publications have sought to highlight the benefits of tracking patient radiation exposure and how it can be used to strengthen the justification and optimization processes to enhance patient safety. In some cases, authors promote the use of dose tracking to keep medical prescribers aware of the patients' cumulative exposure, presumably with a view to influencing the justification process. Inclusion of patient dose history in the justification process can be problematic for reasons that are not always well understood by medical prescribers. Our paper seeks to highlight these issues and attempts to provide some clarification. Key Points • Care must be taken in how cumulative radiation exposure is interpreted as it pertains to the justification process.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingRadiation DosageRadiation ExposureCardiologyHumansMagnetic Resonance AngiographyPatientsPatient SafetyRadiation ProtectionRadiography, InterventionalRiskRisk AssessmentTomography, X-Ray ComputedPatient safetyRadiation dosageRadiation protectionRisk

Identifiers

PMID32219506

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.