IntraMed - Artículos - Sustentabilidad del diagnóstico por imágenes
Exposición a la radiación | 19 MAY 04
Sustentabilidad del diagnóstico por imágenes
En este artículo, el autor subraya el efecto de las pruebas ionizantes en nuestra sociedad y discute las formas simples de lograr abordajes más cautelosos.
Autor: Dr. Picano E. Fuente: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Institute of Clinical Physiology, Pisa, Italy BMJ. 2004 Mar 6;328(7439):578-80.
Bibliografía

1. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Sources and Effects of Ionising Radiation. Report on the effects of atomic radiation to the general assembly, 2000. Medical radiation exposures. New York: UN, 2001.
2. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Ionising radiation exposure of the population of the United States. Bethesda, MA: NCRP, 1987. (Report No 93.)
3. United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Sources and effects of ionising radiation. New York: UN, 1996.
4. Regulla D, Griebel J, Nosske D, Bauer B, Brix G. Acquisition and assessment of patient exposure in diagnostic radiology and nuclear medicine. Z Med Phys 2003;13:127-35.
5. Hall EJ. Lessons we have learned from our children: cancer risks from diagnostic radiology. Pediatr Radiol 2002;32:700-6.
6. Illich I. Medical nemesis. The expropriation of health. New York: Random House, 1976.
7. Berrington De Gonzalez A, Darby S. Risk of cancer from diagnostic x-ray: estimates for the UK and 14 other countries. Lancet 2004;363:345-51.
8. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiological protection in biomedical research. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1991.
9. International Commission on Radiological Protection. Radiation and your patient: a guide for medical practitioners. A web module produced by Committee 3 of the ICRP. 2001 www.icrp.org/docs/ Rad_for_GP_for_web.pdf. (accessed 12 February 2004).
10. Kaiser J. Hormesis. A healthful dab of radiation? Science 2003;302:378.
11. Davis GT, Bruwer AJ. Health effects of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. N Engl J Med 1991;324:7.
12. Cormack J, Towson JEC, Flower MA. Radiation protection and dosimetry in clinical practice. In: Murray IPC, Ell PG eds. Nuclear medicine in clinical diagnosis and treatment. Oxford: Churchill Livingstone, 1998:1655.
13. European Commission. Radiation protection 118: referral guidelines for imaging. http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/radprot/118/rp- 118-en.pdf (accessed 11 Feb 2004).
14. Center for Devices and Radiological Health.Whole body scanning: using computed tomography. www.fda.gov/cdrh/ct (accessed 14 Nov, 2003).
15. Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Public health notification: reducing radiation risk from computed tomography for pediatric and small adult patients (2 Nov 2001). www.fda.gov/cdrh/safety.html (accessed 14 Nov, 2003).
16. Ron E. Ionising radiation and cancer risk: evidence from epidemiology. Pediatr Radiol 2002;32:232-7.
17. Shiralkar S, Rennie A, Snow M, Galland RB, Lewis MH, Gower-Thomas K. Doctors' knowledge of radiation exposure: questionnaire study. BMJ 2003;327:371-2.
18. Morin RL, Gerber TC, McCollough CH. Radiation dose in computed tomography of the heart. Circulation 2003;107:917-22.
19. Council Directive 97/43/Euratom of 30 June 1997 on health protection of individuals against the dangers of ionising radiation in relation to medical exposure, and repealing Directive 84/466/Euratom. Official Journal of the European Communities L 180 1997 Jul 9:0022-7.
Picano E. Stress echocardiography: a historical perspective. Am J Med 2003;114:126-30.

Comentarios

Usted debe estar registrado para expresar su opinión. Si ya es usuario de IntraMed o desea registrase como nuevo usuario, ingrese aquí
Los más...
Términos y condiciones de uso | Todos los derechos reservados | Copyright 1997-2014