ArticleJournal of pediatric surgery2015
Radiation exposure and safety practices during pediatric central line placement.
Article in Journal of pediatric surgery, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Your C-Arm May Be Dose Optimised but Is Your Surgical Procedure? The Evaluation and Dose Optimisation of Positioning Aids Used in Paediatric Image Guided Surgery.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Underestimation of fluoroscopic exposure among orthopedic residents.Skeletal radiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposePediatric surgeons routinely use fluoroscopy for central venous line (CVL) placement. We examined radiation safety practices and patient/surgeon exposure during fluoroscopic CVL.
methodsFluoroscopic CVL procedures performed by 11 pediatric surgeons in 2012 were reviewed. Fluoroscopic time (FT), patient exposure (mGy), and procedural data were collected. Anthropomorphic phantom simulations were used to calculate scatter and dose (mSv). Surgeons were surveyed regarding safety practices.
results386 procedures were reviewed. Median FT was 12.8 seconds. Median patient estimated effective dose was 0.13 mSv. Median annual FT per surgeon was 15.4 minutes. Simulations showed no significant difference (p=0.14) between reported exposures (median 3.5 mGy/minute) and the modeled regression exposures from the C-arm default mode (median 3.4 mGy/minute). Median calculated surgeon exposure was 1.5 mGy/year. Eight of 11 surgeons responded to the survey. Only three reported 100% lead protection and frequent dosimeter use.
conclusionWe found nonstandard radiation training, safety practices, and dose monitoring for the 11 surgeons. Based on simulations, the C-arm default setting was typically used instead of low dose. While most CVL procedures have low patient/surgeon doses, every effort should be used to minimize patient and occupational exposure, suggesting the need for formal hands-on training for nonradiologist providers using fluoroscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.