Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26675205›Full record

ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2016

Personal exposure to static and time-varying magnetic fields during MRI procedures in clinical practice in the UK.

Evridiki Batistatou, Anna Mölter, Hans Kromhout, Martie van Tongeren, Stuart Crozier, Kristel Schaap, Penny Gowland, Stephen F Keevil, Frank de Vocht

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Electromagnetic Exposure of Personnel Involved in Cardiac MRI Examinations in 1.5T, 3T and 7T Scanners.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  4. dB/dt Evaluation in MRI Sites: Is ICNIRP Threshold Limit (for Workers) Exceeded?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Evridiki BatistatouCentre for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Anna MölterDepartment of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.
Hans KromhoutInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Martie van TongerenCentre for Human Exposure Science, Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, UK.
Stuart CrozierSchool of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Kristel SchaapInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Penny GowlandSchool of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Stephen F KeevilDepartment of Medical Physics, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK Department of Biomedical Engineering, King's College London, London, UK.
Frank de VochtSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMRI has developed into one of the most important medical diagnostic imaging modalities, but it exposes staff to static magnetic fields (SMF) when present in the vicinity of the MR system, and to radiofrequency and switched gradient electromagnetic fields if they are present during image acquisition. We measured exposure to SMF and motion-induced time-varying magnetic fields (TVMF) in MRI staff in clinical practice in the UK to enable extensive assessment of personal exposure levels and variability, which enables comparison to other countries.

methods8 MRI facilities across National Health Service sites in England, Wales and Scotland were included, and staff randomly selected during the days when measurements were performed were invited to wear a personal MRI-compatible dosimeter and keep a diary to record all procedures and tasks performed during the measured shift.

results98 participants, primarily radiographers (71%) but also other healthcare staff, anaesthetists and other medical staff were included, resulting in 149 measurements. Average geometric mean peak SMF and TVMF exposures were 448 mT (range 20-2891) and 1083 mT/s (9-12 355 mT/s), and were highest for radiographers (GM=559 mT and GM=734 mT/s). Time-weighted exposures to SMF and TVMF (GM=16 mT (range 5-64) and GM=14 mT/s (range 9-105)) and exposed-time-weighted exposures to SMF and TVMF (GM=27 mT (range 11-89) and GM=17 mT/s (range 9-124)) were overall relative low-primarily because staff were not in the MRI suite for most of their shifts-and did not differ significantly between occupations.

conclusionsThese results are comparable to the few data available from the UK but they differ from recent data collected in the Netherlands, indicating that UK staff are exposed for shorter periods but to higher levels. These data indicate that exposure to SMF and TVMF from MRI scanners cannot be extrapolated across countries.

Indexed as

Magnetic FieldsAdultAgedEnvironmental MonitoringFemaleHealth FacilitiesHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedOccupational ExposureRadiation DosimetersState MedicineSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID26675205
PMCPMC5116531

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.