ArticleOccupational and environmental medicine2019
Cataract risk in US radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Occupational and environmental medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Occupational Protection in Interventional Radiology. A Joint Guideline of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe and the Society of Interventional Radiology.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Guideline
- Risk of cataract in health care workers exposed to ionizing radiation: a systematic review.La Medicina del lavoro · 2020Pooled it
- ALARA+: Summit on Radiation and Orthopedic Risks in Fluoroscopic Laboratories.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Review
- Multicenter, randomized controlled study evaluating percutaneous and non-fluoroscopic procedure of atrial septal defects-study protocol of the PANASD randomized controlled trial.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- Radiation Exposure to the Brains of Interventional Radiology Staff: A Phantom Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Occupational Radiation Dose Trends in U.S. Radiologic Technologists Assisting with Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures, 1980-2020.Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2024Article
- Occupational exposures and age-related cataract: A review.Archives of environmental & occupational health · 2024Review
- Collar Badge Lens Dose Equivalent Values among United States Physicians Performing Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures.Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2022Article
- The Need for a Broad-based Introduction to Radiation Science within U.S. Medical Schools' Educational Curriculum.Radiology · 2021Article
- Eye protection in interventional procedures.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Catheter strategy to ease the procedure and reduce radiation exposure when requiring neck access.Open heart · 2020Article
- Occupational Doses to Medical Staff Performing or Assisting with Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures.Radiology · 2020Article
- A study to assess the knowledge and practice of medical professionals on radiation protection in interventional radiology.The Indian journal of radiology & imagingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess radiation exposure-related work history and risk of cataract and cataract surgery among radiologic technologists assisting with fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures (FGIP).
methodsThis retrospective study included 35 751 radiologic technologists who reported being cataract-free at baseline (1994-1998) and completed a follow-up questionnaire (2013-2014). Frequencies of assisting with 21 types of FGIP and use of radiation protection equipment during five time periods (before 1970, 1970-1979, 1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2009) were derived from an additional self-administered questionnaire in 2013-2014. Multivariable-adjusted relative risks (RRs) for self-reported cataract diagnosis and cataract surgery were estimated according to FGIP work history.
resultsDuring follow-up, 9372 technologists reported incident physician-diagnosed cataract; 4278 of incident cases reported undergoing cataract surgery. Technologists who ever assisted with FGIP had increased risk for cataract compared with those who never assisted with FGIP (RR: 1.18, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.25). Risk increased with increasing cumulative number of FGIP; the RR for technologists who assisted with >5000 FGIP compared with those who never assisted was 1.38 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.53; p trend <0.001). These associations were more pronounced for FGIP when technologists were located ≤3 feet (≤0.9 m) from the patient compared with >3 feet (>0.9 m) (RRs for >5000 at ≤3 feet vs never FGIP were 1.48, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.74 and 1.15, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.35, respectively; pdifference=0.04). Similar risks, although not statistically significant, were observed for cataract surgery.
conclusionTechnologists who reported assisting with FGIP, particularly high-volume FGIP within 3 feet of the patient, had increased risk of incident cataract. Additional investigation should evaluate estimated dose response and medically validated cataract type.
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.