ArticleActa radiologica open2023
Communicating radiation dose in medical imaging: How to best inform our patients?
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Communicating radiation risk in healthcare: an ethical imperative amidst scientific uncertainty.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Chest Equivalent Dose as a Symbolic Radiation Communication Tool: Leadership Implications for Nurses' Knowledge, Anxiety, and Risk Attribution.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2026Article
- Assessing Caregiver Satisfaction and Preferences in Pediatric Radiology: A Study on Communication and Safety Concerns.Sage open pediatricsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.