Communication of benefits and risks of medical radiation: A historical perspective

Health Physics

Volumn 101, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 562-565

  Timins, Julie K ^a  

^a Diagnostic Radiology   (United States)

Author keywords

historical profiles; medical radiation; National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; risk communication

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; FEMALE; HISTORY; HUMAN; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NUCLEAR PHYSICS; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION INDUCED NEOPLASM; RADIATION INJURY; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOTHERAPY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; X RAY;

COMMUNICATION; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; FEMALE; HISTORY, 19TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HUMANS; INTERNATIONALITY; MALE; NEOPLASMS, RADIATION-INDUCED; NUCLEAR PHYSICS; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION INJURIES; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOGRAPHY; RADIOTHERAPY; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY MANAGEMENT; X-RAYS;

EID: 80054039394     PISSN: 00179078     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/HP.0b013e3182259a71     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria [online]. 2009. Available atwww.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality-safety/app-criteria. aspx. Accessed 11 May 2011.
2. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging-reporting and data system. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003.
3. Amis ES. Statement before the United States House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, hearing on "medical radiation: an overview of the issues." Washington, DC: Transcript of proceedings, U.S. House of Representatives; 26 February 2010.
4. Baerlocher M. iPhone application tracks radiation exposure, risk. RSNA News (December) 2009.
5. Berlin L. Communicating results of all outpatient radiologic examinations directly to patients: the time has come. AJR 192:571-573; 2009a.
6. Berlin L. Malpractice fears in mammography overestimated. RSNA News (July) 2009b.
7. Berquist TH. Communication: the needs of the patient come first. AJR 192:557-559; 2009.
8. Berrington deGonzalez A, Mahesh M, Kim KP, Bhargavan M, Lewis R, Mettler F, Land CE. Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med 169:2071-2077; 2009.
9. Bodganich W. As technology surges, radiation safeguards lag. NY Times (26 January) 2010a. Available at www.nytimes. com/2010/01/27/us/27radiation.html? scp= 1&sq = As% 20Technology%20Surges,%20Radiation%20Safeguards% 20Lag,%202010&st=cse. Accessed 12 May 2011.
10. Bogdanich W. Radiation offers new cures, and ways to do harm. NY Times (23 January) 2010b. Available at query.nytimes. com/search/sitesearch?query= Radiation+offers+new+cures %2C + and+ways + to + do + harm%2C + 2010&submit. x=29&submit.y=10. Accessed 12 May 2011.
11. Bogdanich W, Ruiz R. Radiation errors reported in Missouri. NY Times (24 February) 2010. Available at www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/us/25radiation.html?scp = 1&sq=Radiation% 20errors%20reported%20in%20Missouri,%202010&st=cse. Accessed 12 May 2011.
12. Brenner, Hall. Computed tomography-an increasing source of radiation exposure. NEJM 357:2277-2284; 2007.
13. Goske MJ, Applegate KE, Boylan J, Butler PF, Callahan MJ, Coley BD, Farley S, Frush DP, Hernanz-Schulman M, Jaramillo D, Johnson ND, Kaste SC, Morrison G, Strauss KJ, Tuggle N. The image gently campaign: working together to change practice. AJR 190:273-274; 2008. (Pubitemid 351196594)
14. Hunter TB, Taljanovic MS. Medical devices of the abdomen and pelvis. Radiographics 25:503-523; 2005. (Pubitemid 40547067)
15. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the ICRP. Oxford: Pergamon Press; ICRP Publication 9; 1966.
16. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Recommendations of the ICRP. Oxford: Pergamon Press; ICRP Publication 26, Ann. ICRP 1(3); 1971.
17. International Commission on Radiological Protection. The history of ICRP and the evaluation of its policies. In: Application of the Commission's recommendations for the protection of people in emergency exposure situations. New York: Elsevier; ICRP Publication 109; Ann. ICRP 39(1):75-110; 2009.
18. Kopans D. Why the critics of screening mammography are wrong. Diagnostic Imaging 31:18-24; 2009.
19. Koyama T, Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Kuo MS, Notohara K, Burgart LJ. Primary hepatic angiosarcoma: findings at MR and CT imaging. Radiol 222:667-673; 2002. (Pubitemid 34215211)
20. Larson DB, Rader SB, Forma HB, Fenton LZ. Informing parents about CT radiation exposure in children: it's ok to tell them. AJR 189:271-275; 2007. (Pubitemid 47195909)
21. Lee CI, Haims AH, Monico EP, Brink JA, Forman HP. Diagnostic CT scans: assessment of patient, physician, and radiologist awareness of radiation dose and possible risks. Radiol 231:393-398; 2004. (Pubitemid 38552895)
22. Mammography Quality Standards Act. Public Law 102-539, 42 USC 263b [online]. 1992. Available at www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/ MammographyQualityStandardsActand Program/Regulations/ucm110823.htm. Accessed 11 May 2011.
23. McBride J, Paxton B, Wardrop R. An assessment of ordering physician's knowledge and attitudes regarding risk from CT associated radiation exposure. AJR 192:A106-A113; 2009.
24. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, Kim KP, Mahesh M, Gould R, Berrington de González A, Miglioretti DL. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography exams and associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med 169:2078-2086; 2009.
25. Srinivasan R, Dean HA. Thorotrast and the liver-revisited. Clinical Toxicol 35:199-202; 1997.
26. United States Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer [online]. 2009. Available at:www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm. Accessed 11 May 2011.