FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2117569785> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2117569785 endingPage "309" @default.
• W2117569785 startingPage "309" @default.
• W2117569785 abstract "In a recent issue of Annals, Lee et al1Lee J. Kirschner J. Pawa S. et al.Computed tomography use in the adult emergency department of an academic urban hospital from 2001 to 2007.Ann Emerg Med. 2010; 56: 591-596Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (95) Google Scholar provides important information on the rate of computed tomography (CT) use in an academic emergency department (ED) and thoughtfully discuss the implications for carcinogenesis. I applaud their efforts to describe medical ionizing radiation exposures in the ED and to relate these to subsequent cancer risk. They nicely describe some uncertainties of risk assessment and place the risk from CT into context, emphasizing that the generally agreed-on risks are small. However, I believe their discussion may confuse readers about 2 features of risk associated with ionizing radiation exposure. First, Lee et al state that “radiation sensitivity and potential risk of cancer generally persist into adulthood, approximately until the age of 35 years,” citing work by Brenner and Hall.2Brenner D.J. Hall E.J. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure.N Engl J Med. 2007; 357: 2277-2284Crossref PubMed Scopus (6394) Google Scholar Brenner and Hall's estimates of attributable mortality risk from medical radiation exposures do not suggest an upper age limit to radiation sensitivity; rather, they suggest that the attributable mortality risk from a single exposure plateaus but persists for exposures occurring after approximately age 35 years.2Brenner D.J. Hall E.J. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure.N Engl J Med. 2007; 357: 2277-2284Crossref PubMed Scopus (6394) Google Scholar Although the attributable cancer risk from a single radiation exposure in older adults is small, the cumulative effects of multiple exposures over time should be considered because adults remain susceptible.3Griffey R.T. Sodickson A. Cumulative radiation exposure and cancer risk estimates in emergency department patients undergoing repeat or multiple CT.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 192: 887-892Crossref PubMed Scopus (169) Google Scholar Second, Lee et al describe that “the radiation dose from one CT [is] well within the range for increased cancer risk and increased mortality.”2Brenner D.J. Hall E.J. Computed tomography—an increasing source of radiation exposure.N Engl J Med. 2007; 357: 2277-2284Crossref PubMed Scopus (6394) Google Scholar This statement suggests that a threshold for carcinogenesis exists and that a safe level of exposure could be defined, below which no risk occurs. However, the model of radiation-related carcinogenesis endorsed by the National Academies in the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation VII report is the “linear-no-threshold” model.4Committee to Assess the Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation; National Research Council (US)Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII, Phase 2. Washington, DC, 2006Google Scholar As the name implies, this model holds that no safe threshold exists and that a linear risk continues even with very low exposures. The importance of this to emergency physicians and their patients is that low exposures, although making a small contribution to cancer risk, cannot be discounted entirely and should be considered in the overall risk:benefit decision for each patient. Although it may be convenient shorthand in discussions with patients to describe a given radiation exposure as “safe,” it does not accurately depict the current scientific consensus. Competing theories for radiation carcinogenesis, including one that hypothesizes low-level exposures to be protective, are not endorsed by the National Academies.4Committee to Assess the Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation; National Research Council (US)Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII, Phase 2. Washington, DC, 2006Google Scholar Emergency physicians must have an awareness and sophisticated understanding of the risks associated with diagnostic radiation. Patients will benefit most when physicians neither over- nor underestimate risks. Computed Tomography Use in the Adult Emergency Department of an Academic Urban Hospital From 2001 to 2007Annals of Emergency MedicineVol. 56Issue 6PreviewThere is both increasing recognition and growing scrutiny of the increased utilization of computed tomography (CT) in medicine. For our primary objective, we determine and quantify the CT utilization rate in our emergency department (ED) during the last 7 years. As a secondary objective, we compare trends in utilization for various types of CT scans. Full-Text PDF In replyAnnals of Emergency MedicineVol. 57Issue 3PreviewWe appreciate all the comments from Dr. Broder. The clarifications are helpful, and we agree wholeheartedly with the importance of emergency physicians being more thoughtful about radiation exposure to patients. As evidenced by our study and a number of others in the recent literature, emergency physicians are using and relying on imaging technology more than ever before. For the sake of our patients, we must consider not only the many benefits but also the risks. Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W2117569785 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2117569785 creator A5010977273 @default.
• W2117569785 date "2011-03-01" @default.
• W2117569785 modified "2023-09-29" @default.
• W2117569785 title "Radiation Risks From Diagnostic Computed Tomography in the Emergency Department" @default.
• W2117569785 cites W2009564929 @default.
• W2117569785 cites W2151146394 @default.
• W2117569785 cites W2171697262 @default.
• W2117569785 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.09.022" @default.
• W2117569785 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21353915" @default.
• W2117569785 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W2117569785 type Work @default.
• W2117569785 sameAs 2117569785 @default.
• W2117569785 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2117569785 countsByYear W21175697852014 @default.
• W2117569785 countsByYear W21175697852022 @default.
• W2117569785 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2117569785 hasAuthorship W2117569785A5010977273 @default.
• W2117569785 hasBestOaLocation W21175697851 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C111337013 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C16851059 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C18231593 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C185544564 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C2779925993 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C2780724011 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C2989005 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C2992520072 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C2994136483 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C509974204 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C544519230 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C83867959 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C111337013 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C118552586 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C121332964 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C126838900 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C151730666 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C16851059 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C17744445 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C18231593 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C185544564 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C19527891 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C199539241 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C2779343474 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C2779473830 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C2779925993 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C2780724011 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C2908647359 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C2989005 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C2992520072 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C2994136483 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C509974204 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C544519230 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C71924100 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C83867959 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C86803240 @default.
• W2117569785 hasConceptScore W2117569785C99454951 @default.
• W2117569785 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2117569785 hasLocation W21175697851 @default.
• W2117569785 hasLocation W21175697852 @default.
• W2117569785 hasOpenAccess W2117569785 @default.
• W2117569785 hasPrimaryLocation W21175697851 @default.
• W2117569785 hasRelatedWork W1509404453 @default.
• W2117569785 hasRelatedWork W1558657115 @default.
• W2117569785 hasRelatedWork W2024932317 @default.
• W2117569785 hasRelatedWork W2070998235 @default.
• W2117569785 hasRelatedWork W2076292630 @default.
• W2117569785 hasRelatedWork W2097852589 @default.
• W2117569785 hasRelatedWork W2330172519 @default.
• W2117569785 hasRelatedWork W2552863537 @default.
• W2117569785 hasRelatedWork W3186276173 @default.
• W2117569785 hasRelatedWork W4210797613 @default.
• W2117569785 hasVolume "57" @default.
• W2117569785 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2117569785 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2117569785 magId "2117569785" @default.
• W2117569785 workType "article" @default.