ArticleIrish journal of medical science2015
A comparative analysis of the occupational energy expenditure of radiologists versus clinicians.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Device-measured physical activity, sedentary behaviour and cardiometabolic health and fitness across occupational groups: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2019Pooled it
- Surgeons' physiological parameters and surgical performance: a systematic scoping review.Patient safety in surgery · 2025Review
- Surgeon ability to predict physical activity and sedentary time: Comparison of self-reported and measured activity.The surgeon : journal of the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Ireland · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSedentary lifestyles have been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Radiology as a profession may be sedentary compared to some clinical disciplines.
aimOur aim was to measure the occupation-related energy expenditure of a cohort of radiologists versus clinicians using a specialized pedometer.
methods25 radiologists and 25 clinicians (15 surgeons, 8 physicians and 2 emergency physicians) were measured. The amount of steps walked, stairs climbed and calories burned on a given day from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. were compared between the groups.
resultsThe difference in mean calorie usage per day was 320 greater, and steps walked per day 2,985 greater, in clinicians than in radiologists (p < 0.0001 for each).
conclusionSuch a difference in calorie intake can have significant long-term health implications in terms of increased weight or BMI. Means of combating this deficit are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25342162What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.