Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Insights into Imaging
Published in: Insights into Imaging 5/2013

Open Access 01-10-2013 | Opinion

Response to invited commentary: “Event-based versus process-based informed consent to address scientific evidence and uncertainties in ionizing medical imaging” by Recchia et al

Authors: Virginia Recchia, Antonio Dodaro, Larissa Braga

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 5/2013

Login to get access

Excerpt

We thank Prof. Vock for his noteworthy and constructive commentary [1]. This gives us the opportunity to briefly provide additional observations to elaborate this topic further. We agree with Prof. Vock that our theoretical approach [2] may not be applied in a non-invasive and low-dose medical imaging. Nevertheless, this makes the innovation that we are trying to develop even more challenging. We are all discussing about something similar to a “paradigm shift”, in the sense described by Kuhn [3]: (a) presenting results “sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity” and (b) “being sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to solve.” …
Literature
1.
Vock P (2013) Invited Commentary: “Event-based versus process-based informed consent to address scientific evidence and uncertainties in ionising medical imaging” by Recchia et al. Insights Imaging. doi:10.​1007/​s13244-013-0283-3
2.
Recchia V, Dodaro A, Braga L (2013) Event-based versus process-based informed consent to address scientific evidence and uncertainties in ionising medical imaging. Insights Imaging. doi:10.​1007/​s13244-013-0272-6
3.
Kuhn TS (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
4.
5.
Picano E (2004) Informed consent and communication of risk from radiological and nuclear medicine examinations: how to escape from a communication inferno. BMJ 329(7470):849–51PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Metadata
Title
Response to invited commentary: “Event-based versus process-based informed consent to address scientific evidence and uncertainties in ionizing medical imaging” by Recchia et al
Authors
Virginia Recchia
Antonio Dodaro
Larissa Braga
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/s13244-013-0284-2

Other articles of this Issue 5/2013

Insights into Imaging 5/2013 Go to the issue

Statement

Joint ESR-EFSUMB recommendation on archiving and reporting ultrasound examinations

Pictorial Review

Brain stones revisited—between a rock and a hard place

Original Article

A questionnaire survey reviewing radiologists’ and clinical specialist radiographers’ knowledge of CT exposure parameters

Original Article

Survey of inappropriate use of magnetic resonance imaging

Original Article

A radiological classification system for talocalcaneal coalition based on a multi-planar imaging study using CT and MRI

Opinion

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