| Title |
Ionizing radiation from computed tomography versus anesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging in infants and children: patient safety considerations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pediatric Radiology, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00247-017-4023-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael J. Callahan, Robert D. MacDougall, Sarah D. Bixby, Stephan D. Voss, Richard L. Robertson, Joseph P. Cravero |
| Abstract |
In the context of health care, risk assessment is the identification, evaluation and estimation of risk related to a particular clinical situation or intervention compared to accepted medical practice standards. The goal of risk assessment is to determine an acceptable level of risk for a given clinical treatment or intervention in association with the provided clinical circumstances for a patient or group of patients. In spite of the inherent challenges related to risk assessment in pediatric cross-sectional imaging, the potential risks of ionizing radiation and sedation/anesthesia in the pediatric population are thought to be quite small. Nevertheless both issues continue to be topics of discussion concerning risk and generate significant anxiety and concern for patients, parents and practicing pediatricians. Recent advances in CT technology allow for more rapid imaging with substantially lower radiation exposures, obviating the need for anesthesia for many indications and potentially mitigating concerns related to radiation exposure. In this review, we compare and contrast the potential risks of CT without anesthesia against the potential risks of MRI with anesthesia, and discuss the implications of this analysis on exam selection, providing specific examples related to neuroblastoma surveillance imaging. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 28% |
| India | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Georgia | 1 | 6% |
| Canada | 1 | 6% |
| France | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 8 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 11% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 28 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 29% |
| Engineering | 4 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 3 | 4% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 8% |
| Unknown | 32 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 12 April 2021.
All research outputs
#2,961,626
of 25,192,722 outputs
Outputs from Pediatric Radiology
#126
of 2,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,714
of 451,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pediatric Radiology
#1
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,192,722 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,228 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 451,249 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.