ArticleActa Cardiologica Sinica2019
Evaluation of Radiation Exposure on Physicians During Angioplasty for Hemodialysis Access Dysfunction.
Article in Acta Cardiologica Sinica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effectiveness and Safety between Monoplane and Biplane Imaging During Coronary Angiographies.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous interventions help patients with various cardiovascular diseases, however radiation exposure is a safety concern for both patients and health care providers. We previously reported that dose area product (DAP) is apparently different in central body and upper-limb areas during percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for arteriovenous shunt dysfunction. In this study, we investigated the precise radiation dose at the patients' back and at the non-targeted organs of the operators.
methodsThe radiation dose was measured with optically stimulated luminescent dosimeters and DAP on several sites including the backs of the patients, gonads, hands and lens of the operators. The studied populations were categorized into central, upper arm and forearm groups based on the lesion sites.
resultsThe results indicated that there was a significantly higher radiation dose in the central lesion group than in the upper arm and forearm groups. Conversely, there were no specific differences in total procedure time and fluoroscopy time among groups. The radiation exposure doses in the operators showed that regardless of the site, including lens, hands and gonads of the operators, the radiation dose was significantly higher in the central lesion group.
conclusionsThe closer the lesion site to the body center, the higher the radiation exposure in both the patients and operators.
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.