English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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:

insights into imaging

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