Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37101461›Full record

ArticleActa radiologica open2023

Communicating radiation dose in medical imaging: How to best inform our patients?

Sergio Salerno, Cosimo Nardi, Mario Pace, Lidia Rabiolo, Federica Flammia, Francesco Loverre, Domenica Matranga, Claudio Granata, Paolo Tomà, Stefano Colagrande

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta radiologica open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Sergio SalernoDipartimento di Biomedicina, Neuroscienze e Diagnostica Avanzata, Policlinico Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1020-3437
Cosimo NardiDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Sperimentali e Cliniche, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Università di Firenze, Florence, Italy.
Mario PaceDipartimento di Biomedicina, Neuroscienze e Diagnostica Avanzata, Policlinico Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Lidia RabioloDipartimento di Biomedicina, Neuroscienze e Diagnostica Avanzata, Policlinico Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Federica FlammiaDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Sperimentali e Cliniche, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Università di Firenze, Florence, Italy.
Francesco LoverreDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Sperimentali e Cliniche, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Università di Firenze, Florence, Italy.
Domenica MatrangaDipartimento di Promozione della Salute, Materno-Infantile, di Medicina Interna e Specialistica di Eccellenza Policlinico, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Claudio GranataUnità Operativa Complessa di Radiologia, IRCCS Istituto Giannina Gaslini, Genova, Italy.
Paolo TomàDipartimento Diagnostica Per Immagini Radiologia e Bioimaging, IRCCS Ospedale Pediatrico Bambino Gesù, Roma, Italy.
Stefano ColagrandeDipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Sperimentali e Cliniche, Radiodiagnostic Unit n. 2, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Careggi, Università di Firenze, Florence, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The newly adopted European directive DE59/2013 mandates adequate patient information in procedures involving ionising radiation. Patient interest in knowing about their radiation dose and an effective communication method for dose exposure remain poorly investigated. Purpose: This study is aimed at investigating both patient interest in radiation dose and an effective method to communicate radiation dose exposure. Material and methods: The present analysis is based on a multi-centre cross-sectional data collection involving 1,084 patients from four different hospitals ‒ two general and two paediatric hospitals. Anonymous questionnaires were administered, consisting of an initial overview of radiation use in imaging procedures, a patient data section, and an explanatory section providing information in four modalities. Results: 1009 patients were included in the analysis, with 75 refusing participation; 173 participants were relatives of paediatric patients. Initial information provided to patients was considered comprehensible. The information modality with symbols was considered the most readily understandable format by patients, with no appreciable differences in comprehension attributable to social or cultural background. The modality including dose numbers and diagnostic reference levels was preferred by patients with higher socio-economic background. The option 'None of those' was selected by one-third of our sample population, composed of four different clusters: female, over 60 years old, unemployed, and from low socio-economic backgrounds. Conclusions: This study demonstrated a high level of interest amongst patients in knowing about radiation dose exposure. Pictorial representations were well understood by patients from a variety of different ages and education levels. However, a universally comprehensible model of communicating radiation dose information remains to be elucidated.

Indexed as

communicationdose exposureRadiation dose

Identifiers

PMID37101461
PMCPMC10123897

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.