ArticleRadiation protection dosimetry2026
External clinical audits in clinical radiology in Finland.
Article in Radiation protection dosimetry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical audits have been implemented in Finland to healthcare organizations over 20 years. We introduce the outcomes of fourth round external clinical audits on medical radiological procedures following the implementation of the EU Directive (Basic Safety Standards). We analyzed 31 external clinical audits on radiological practices in 2018-2022. The summarized strengths and recommendations from the audits were collected from the main auditing organization's database. 306 recommendations were given, 18% related to definitions of responsibilities, 16% to internal procedural guidelines, 16% to personnel education, and 25% to quality assurance and utilization of self-assessments of radiological procedures. Private and small organizations received less recommendations than large and public operators. Moreover, 215 strengths were reported, focusing on the clarity of responsibilities (21%) and excellence in quality assurance (15%). Reaching and maintaining feasible radiological diagnostic accuracy by consideration of radiation safety requires continuous quality assurance and development facilitated, and monitored by clinical audits.
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.