Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Insights into Imaging 5/2013

Open Access 01-10-2013 | Opinion

Invited Commentary: “Event-based versus process-based informed consent to address scientific evidence and uncertainties in ionising medical imaging” by Recchia et al.

Author: Peter Vock

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 5/2013

Login to get access

Excerpt

The authors of this article [1] have to be congratulated for their clear presentation of stepwise, process-based informed consent, including evidence-based justification, full patient information on benefits and risks, and interactive communication with enough time for the patient before taking the decision on whether to undergo an examination. Recchia et al. are in line with the clinical consent process [2], and even some radiological articles head in the same direction [3, 4]. The authors will likely get unanimous approval for their approach whenever risky interventions or complex examinations with an elevated dose level are considered. Non-invasive imaging examinations using low-dose levels, however, are not discussed differently by the authors, although this contrasts to the reality in radiology departments in Europe, the USA [5] and probably most countries. In other words, the theory is not applied in a large segment of the real world, and this brings up several questions: …
Literature
1.
go back to reference Recchia V, Dodaro A, Braga L (2013) Event-based versus process-based informed consent to address scientific evidence and uncertainties in ionizing medical imaging. Insights Imaging. doi:10.1007/s13244-013-0272-6 Recchia V, Dodaro A, Braga L (2013) Event-based versus process-based informed consent to address scientific evidence and uncertainties in ionizing medical imaging. Insights Imaging. doi:10.1007/s13244-013-0272-6
4.
go back to reference Karsli T, Kalra MK, Self JL, Rosenfeld JA, Butler S, Simoneaux S (2009) What physicians think about the need for informed consent for communicating the risk of cancer from low-dose radiation. Pediatr Radiol 39:917–925PubMedCrossRef Karsli T, Kalra MK, Self JL, Rosenfeld JA, Butler S, Simoneaux S (2009) What physicians think about the need for informed consent for communicating the risk of cancer from low-dose radiation. Pediatr Radiol 39:917–925PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Lee CI, Flaster HV, Haims AH, Monico EP, Forman HP (2006) Diagnostic CT scans: institutional informed consent guidelines and practices at academic medical centers. AJR 187:282–287PubMedCrossRef Lee CI, Flaster HV, Haims AH, Monico EP, Forman HP (2006) Diagnostic CT scans: institutional informed consent guidelines and practices at academic medical centers. AJR 187:282–287PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Malone J, Guleria R, Craven C, Horton P, Järvinen H, Mayo J, O’Reilly G, Picano E, Remedios D, Le Heron J, Rehani M, Holmberg O, Czarwinski R (2012) Justification of diagnostic medical exposures: some practical issues. Report of an International Atomic Energy Agency Consultation. Brit J Radiol 85:523–538PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Malone J, Guleria R, Craven C, Horton P, Järvinen H, Mayo J, O’Reilly G, Picano E, Remedios D, Le Heron J, Rehani M, Holmberg O, Czarwinski R (2012) Justification of diagnostic medical exposures: some practical issues. Report of an International Atomic Energy Agency Consultation. Brit J Radiol 85:523–538PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Barnett GC, Charman SC, Sizer B, Murray PA (2004) Information given to patients about adverse effects of radiotherapy: a survey of patients’ views. Clin Oncol 16:479–484CrossRef Barnett GC, Charman SC, Sizer B, Murray PA (2004) Information given to patients about adverse effects of radiotherapy: a survey of patients’ views. Clin Oncol 16:479–484CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Invited Commentary: “Event-based versus process-based informed consent to address scientific evidence and uncertainties in ionising medical imaging” by Recchia et al.
Author
Peter Vock
Publication date
01-10-2013
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Insights into Imaging / Issue 5/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-013-0283-3

Other articles of this Issue 5/2013

Insights into Imaging 5/2013 Go to the issue