| Title |
Changes in radiological imaging frequencies in children before and after the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Japanese Journal of Radiology, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11604-015-0464-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Koji Yoshida, Naomi Hayashida, Yoshiko Fukushima, Akira Ohtsuru, Takashi Ohba, Arifumi Hasegawa, Hisashi Sato, Fumio Shishido, Kiyotaka Yasui, Atsushi Kumagai, Takeshi Yusa, Takashi Kudo, Shunichi Yamashita, Noboru Takamura |
| Abstract |
The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant has raised concerns about radiation exposure, including medical radiation exposure such as X-ray and CT, in residents of Fukushima. We compared the numbers and the ratio of outpatients less than 10 years old who underwent imaging examinations [e.g., CT, X-ray, MRI, ultrasonography (US), etc.] at Fukushima Medical University hospital in Fukushima, Japan before (April 1, 2008-March 31, 2011) and after (April 1, 2011-March 31, 2014) the accident. The number of outpatients less than 10 years old decreased after the accident. The number of outpatients less than 10 years old who underwent CT and X-ray examinations also significantly decreased after the accident (p < 0.001, p < 0.01, respectively). Our results suggest that the number of pediatric radiological examinations decreased after the accident in Fukushima. We should continue to communicate with patients and their families to ensure that they understand the risks and benefits of radiological imaging in order to overcome their concerns about the nuclear disaster. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Japan | 1 | 17% |
| China | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 4% |
| India | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 21 | 91% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 26% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Professor | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 26% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 14 August 2015.
All research outputs
#12,638,346
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from Japanese Journal of Radiology
#92
of 358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,731
of 263,426 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Japanese Journal of Radiology
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 358 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 263,426 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 57% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.