↓ Skip to main content

Current knowledge on tumour induction by computed tomography should be carefully used

Overview of attention for article published in European Radiology, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Current knowledge on tumour induction by computed tomography should be carefully used
Published in
European Radiology, November 2013
DOI 10.1007/s00330-013-3047-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cristian Candela-Juan, Alegría Montoro, Enrique Ruiz-Martínez, Juan Ignacio Villaescusa, Luis Martí-Bonmatí

Abstract

Risks associated to ionising radiation from medical imaging techniques have focused the attention of the medical society and general population. This risk is aimed to determine the probability that a tumour is induced as a result of a computed tomography (CT) examination since it makes nowadays the biggest contribution to the collective dose. Several models of cancer induction have been reported in the literature, with diametrically different implications. This article reviews those models, focusing on the ones used by the scientific community to estimate CT detriments. Current estimates of the probability that a CT examination induces cancer are reported, highlighting its low magnitude (near the background level) and large sources of uncertainty. From this objective review, it is concluded that epidemiological data with more accurate dosimetric estimates are needed. Prediction of the number of tumours that will be induced in population exposed to ionising radiation should be avoided or, if given, it should be accompanied by a realistic evaluation of its uncertainty and of the advantages of CTs. Otherwise they may have a negative impact in both the medical community and the patients. Reducing doses even more is not justified if that compromises clinical image quality in a necessary investigation. Key Points • Predictions of radiation-induced cancer should be discussed alongside benefits of imaging. • Estimates of induced cancers have noticeable uncertainties that should always be highlighted. • There is controversy about the acceptance of the linear no-threshold model. • Estimated extra risks of cancer are close to the background level. • Patients should not be alarmed by potential cancer induction by CT examinations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 2%
Luxembourg 1 2%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 38 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 22%
Other 8 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Master 3 7%
Other 8 20%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Physics and Astronomy 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 9 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 January 2015.
All research outputs
#7,126,046
of 22,733,113 outputs
Outputs from European Radiology
#1,056
of 4,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,267
of 306,502 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Radiology
#5
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,733,113 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,101 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 306,502 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.