ArticleArhiv za higijenu rada i toksikologiju2025
Knowledge and perceptions of ionising radiation among Croatian general practitioners: is there cause for concern?
Article in Arhiv za higijenu rada i toksikologiju, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sociodemographic factors associated with public awareness of medical radiation risks and safety practices in the West Bank, Palestine: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Awareness and Understanding of Ionizing and Non-Ionizing Radiation Modalities Among Patients in Saudi Arabia.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent data suggest that general practitioners (GPs) are insufficiently familiar with health risks associated with ionising radiation and radiation doses. The aim of our cross-sectional study was therefore to see if this holds true for Croatian GPs. To do that, we distributed a questionnaire about ionising radiation and doses used in various radiological procedures by email or by handing it out to participants at a national GP conference. We received responses from 120 participating GPs. Most were women (83.1 %), and the mean participant age was 44.2 years (range 26-65) with mean practice of 17.1 years (range 1-40). Most participants (97 %) believed patients should be informed about the procedures they were referred to. All respondents knew that radiological procedures irradiate the patient's body, but not everyone agreed that they could be harmful. Less than half (47 %) thought that exposure to a single irradiation dose was enough to increase cancer risk. Most participants (89.2 %) identified X-ray scans as the largest irradiation source, whereas three GPs replied that computed tomography (CT) and conventional X-ray procedures did not involve radiation. Some respondents did not know if ultrasound involved ionising radiation. Although most GPs were women, only 21.7 % correctly identified the radiation dose in mammography. Our findings confirm inadequate GPs' knowledge of radiation exposures and call for better training programmes as part of continuing professional development.
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.