How radiation exposure histories influence physician imaging decisions: A multicenter radiologist survey study

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 200, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 1275-1283

  Pandharipande, Pari V ^a,b   Eisenberg, Jonathan D ^a,c   Avery, Laura L ^a,b   Gunn, Martin L ^d   Kang, Stella K ^a,e   Megibow, Alec J ^e   Turan, Ekin A ^a   Harvey, H Benjamin ^a,b   Kong, Chung Yin ^a,b   Dowling, Emily C ^a   Halpern, Elkan F ^a,b   Donelan, Karen ^a,b   Gazelle, G Scott ^a,b  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

CT; Physician decision making; Radiationinduced cancer risks; Survey research

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER RISK; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL HISTORY; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION HAZARD; RADIOLOGIST; RESIDENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DECISION MAKING; MULTICENTER STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION INDUCED NEOPLASM; RADIATION PROTECTION; RISK; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; LINEAR MODELS; LOGISTIC MODELS; NEOPLASMS, RADIATION-INDUCED; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RISK; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; UNITED STATES;

MLCS; MLOWN;

EID: 84880950179     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.10011     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Cook TS, Zimmerman SL, Steingall SR, Maidment AD, Kim W, Boonn WW. Informatics in Radiology: RADIANCE-an automated, enterprise-wide solution for archiving and reporting CT radiation dose estimates. RadioGraphics 2011; 31:1833-1846
2. Wang S, Pavlicek W, Roberts CC, et al. An automated DICOM database capable of arbitrary data mining (including radiation dose indicators) for quality monitoring. J Digit Imaging 2011; 24:223-233
3. Sodickson A, Warden GI, Farkas CE, et al. Exposing exposure: automated anatomy-specific CT radiation exposure extraction for quality assurance and radiation monitoring. Radiology 2012; 264:397-405
4. Ikuta I, Sodickson A, Wasser EJ, Warden GI, Gerbaudo VH, Khorasani R. Exposing exposure: enhancing patient safety through automated data mining of nuclear medicine reports for quality assurance and organ dose monitoring. Radiology 2012; 264:406-413
5. Durand DJ. A rational approach to the clinical use of cumulative effective dose estimates. AJR 2011; 197:160-162
6. Durand DJ, Dixon RL, Morin RL. Utilization strategies for cumulative dose estimates: a review and rational assessment. J Am Coll Radiol 2012; 9:480-485
7. Eisenberg JD, Harvey HB, Moore DA, Gazelle GS, Pandharipande PV. Falling prey to the sunk cost bias: a potential harm of patient radiation dose histories. Radiology 2012; 263:626-628
8. Birnbaum S. Cumulative dose estimates rationally used have a distinct role in patient management and care. J Am Coll Radiol 2012; 9:486-487
9. Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield of West Virginia. Sample dose limit threshold notification. Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield West Virginia website. www.highmarkbcbswv.com/PDFFiles/ nia/dose-limit-sample.pdf. Published February 2, 20 Accessed September 23, 2011
10. The Joint Commission. Radiation risks of diagnostic imaging. The Joint Commission website. www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/ SEA-471.PDF. Published August 24, 20 Accessed September 23, 2011
11. U.S. National Research Council. Advisory Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations: health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation, BEIR VII phase Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, 2006
12. Tubiana M, Feinendegen LE, Yang C, Kaminski JM. The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data. Radiology 2009; 251:13-22
13. Brenner DJ, Sachs RK. Estimating radiation-induced cancer risks at very low doses: rationale for using a linear no-threshold approach. Radiat Environ Biophys 2006; 44:253-256
14. Brenner DJ. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100:13761-13766
15. Little MP, Wakeford R, Tawn EJ, Bouffler SD, Berrington de Gonzalez A. Risks associated with low doses and low dose rates of ionizing radiation: why linearity may be (almost) the best we can do. Radiology 2009; 251:6-12
16. Arkes HR, Blumer C. The psychology of sunk cost. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 1985; 35:124-140
17. Staw BM. Knee-deep in the Big Muddy: a study of escalating commitment to a chosen course of action. Organ Behav Hum Perform 1976; 16:27-44
18. Zeelenberg M, van Dijkc E. A reverse sunk cost effect in risky decision making: sometimes we have too much invested to gamble. J Econ Psychol 1997; 18:677-691
19. Burns KE, Duffett M, Kho ME, et al. A guide for the design and conduct of self-administered surveys of clinicians. CMAJ 2008; 179:245-252