ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2018
dB/dt Evaluation in MRI Sites: Is ICNIRP Threshold Limit (for Workers) Exceeded?
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- 3D mapping of static magnetic field magnitude and axial-components around a total body 3T MRI clinical scanner.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Occupational Exposure Assessment of the Static Magnetic Field Generated by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy: A Case Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Magnetic Particle Imaging: An Emerging Modality with Prospects in Diagnosis, Targeting and Therapy of Cancer.Cancers · 2021Review
- Experimental and Modeling Analyses of Human Motion Across the Static Magnetic Field of an MRI Scanner.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2021Article
- Brain morphologic abnormalities in migraine patients: an observational study.The journal of headache and pain · 2020Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Directive 2013/35/EU establishes standards for workers exposed to static and time varying magnetic fields. These limits are based on ICNIRP guidelines expressed in terms of the electric field induced in the body. The complexity of this measurement led to theoretical models being developed. In this study, the experimental evaluation included varying magnetic field exposures for two classes of MRI workers. The measurements are conducted on four different MRI Systems including one 0.35 T, two 1.5 T, and one 3.0 T. Pocket magnetic dosimeters were used and it was carried out during routine conditions, emergency conditions, and cold-head maintenance/substitution. The acquired data has been processed and the corresponding dB/dt curves have been computed as the first time derivative of the dataset. The weighted peak approach was also implemented for the compliance assessment with regulatory limits. The dB/dt peak values have been compared with the reference level (RL) proposed by ICNIRP. The results show that the RL always exceeds during measurements on the 3.0 T scanner and sometimes on 1.5 T. In light of the foregoing, the diffusion of ultra-high field MRI scanners involves the introduction of behavioral rules that could be more useful than a numerical action level.
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.