Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32742963›Full record

ReviewQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2020

Radiation protection in non-ionizing and ionizing body composition assessment procedures.

Samantha Cornacchia, Luciana La Tegola, Arcangela Maldera, Elena Pierpaoli, Umberto Tupputi, Giovanni Ricatti, Laura Eusebi, Sergio Salerno, Giuseppe Guglielmi

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Body composition imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2020
    Article
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Samantha CornacchiaMedical Physics Unit, Dimiccoli Hospital Barletta, Barletta, ASL Barletta-Andria-Trani, Italy.
Luciana La TegolaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Foggia University School of Medicine, Foggia, Italy.
Arcangela MalderaMedical Physics Unit, Dimiccoli Hospital Barletta, Barletta, ASL Barletta-Andria-Trani, Italy.
Elena PierpaoliASUR Marche, Medical Physics Unit, Ascoli Piceno, Italy.
Umberto TupputiDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Foggia University School of Medicine, Foggia, Italy.
Giovanni RicattiDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Foggia University School of Medicine, Foggia, Italy.
Laura EusebiRadiologia Ospedale "Carlo Urbani", Jesi, Italy.
Sergio SalernoDepartment of Radiology, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Giuseppe GuglielmiDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Foggia University School of Medicine, Foggia, Italy.
University of Foggia · ITUniversity of Palermo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Body composition assessment (BCA) represents a valid instrument to evaluate nutritional status through the quantification of lean and fat tissue, in healthy subjects and sick patients. According to the clinical indication, body composition (BC) can be assessed by different modalities. To better analyze radiation risks for patients involved, BCA procedures can be divided into two main groups: the first based on the use of ionizing radiation (IR), involving dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and computed tomography (CT), and others based on non-ionizing radiation (NIR) [magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)]. Ultrasound (US) techniques using mechanical waves represent a separate group. The purpose of our study was to analyze publications about IR and NIR effects in order to make physicians aware about the risks for patients undergoing medical procedures to assess BCA providing to guide them towards choosing the most suitable method. To this end we reported the biological effects of IR and NIR and their associated risks, with a special regard to the excess risk of death from radio-induced cancer. Furthermore, we reported and compared doses obtained from different IR techniques, giving practical indications on the optimization process. We also summarized current recommendations and limits for techniques employing NIR and US. The authors conclude that IR imaging procedures carry relatively small individual risks that are usually justified by the medical need of patients, especially when the optimization principle is applied. As regards NIR imaging procedures, a few studies have been conducted on interactions between electromagnetic fields involved in MR exam and biological tissue. To date, no clear link exists between MRI or associated magnetic and pulsed radio frequency (RF) fields and subsequent health risks, whereas acute effects such as tissue burns and phosphenes are well-known; as regards the DNA damage and the capability of NIR to break chemical bonds, they are not yet robustly demonstrated. MRI is thus considered to be very safe for BCA as well US procedures.

Indexed as

Body composition (BC)ionizing radiation (IR)non-ionizing radiation (NIR)

Identifiers

PMID32742963
PMCPMC7378088
OpenAlexW3036826109

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.