Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29344902›Full record

ReviewMedical & biological engineering & computing2018

Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields in magnetic resonance environment: basic aspects and review of exposure assessment approaches.

Valentina Hartwig, Stefania Romeo, Olga Zeni

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Medical & biological engineering & computing, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. dB/dt Evaluation in MRI Sites: Is ICNIRP Threshold Limit (for Workers) Exceeded?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018
    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

3 authors.

Valentina HartwigItalian National Research Council (CNR), Institute of Clinical Physiology (IFC), Via G. Moruzzi 1, 56124 San Cataldo, Pisa, Italy. valeh@ifc.cnr.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8453-5368
Stefania RomeoItalian National Research Council (CNR), Institute of Electromagnetic Sensing of the Environment (IREA), via Diocleziano 328, 80124, Naples, Italy.
Olga ZeniItalian National Research Council (CNR), Institute of Electromagnetic Sensing of the Environment (IREA), via Diocleziano 328, 80124, Naples, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this review is to make a contribution to build a comprehensive knowledge of the main aspects related to the occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) environments. Information has been obtained from original research papers published in international peer-reviewed journals in the English language and from documents published by governmental bodies and authorities. An overview of the occupational exposure scenarios to static magnetic fields, motion-induced, time-varying magnetic fields, and gradient and radiofrequency fields is provided, together with a summary of the relevant regulation for limiting exposure. A particular emphasis is on reviewing the main EMF exposure assessment approaches found in the literature. Exposure assessment is carried out either by measuring the unperturbed magnetic fields in the MRI rooms, or by personal monitoring campaigns, or by the use of numerical methods. A general lack of standardization of the procedures and technologies adopted for exposure assessment has emerged, which makes it difficult to perform a direct comparison of results from different studies carried out by applying different assessment strategies. In conclusion, exposure assessment approaches based on data collection and numerical models need to be better defined in order to respond to specific research questions. That would provide for a more complete characterization of the exposure patterns and for identification of the factors determining the exposure variability. Graphical abstract Main approaches adopted in the literature to perform occupational exposure assessment to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) environments. SMF: static magnetic field; GMF: gradient magnetic fields; RF: radio-frequencies.

Indexed as

Electromagnetic FieldsMagnetic Resonance ImagingOccupational ExposureHumansElectromagnetic fieldsExposure assessmentMagnetic resonanceOccupational exposureRegulations and guidelines

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.