ArticleRadiology2020
Occupational Doses to Medical Staff Performing or Assisting with Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures.
Article in Radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- 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
- AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 12.a: Fluoroscopy dose management.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Guideline
- Efficacy of an X-Ray Protective Drape in Reducing Operator Radiation Dose in Transfemoral Arterial Liver Interventions: a Randomized-Controlled Trial.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025Trial
- 100 years of Personal Badge Radiation Doses in a Cohort of U.S. Radiologic Technologists: Expanded and Updated Reconstruction, 1916-2020.Radiation research · 2026Article
- 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
- X-ray scatter in projection radiography.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2024Article
- Fluoroscopic Procedure-Room Scatter-Dose Reduction Using a Region-of-Interest (ROI) Attenuator.Proceedings of SPIE--the International Society for Optical Engineering · 2024Article
- Aegrescit medendo: orthopedic disability in electrophysiology - call for fluoroscopy elimination-review and commentary.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2022Article
- Collar Badge Lens Dose Equivalent Values among United States Physicians Performing Fluoroscopically Guided Interventional Procedures.Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2022Article
- PERSONAL DOSIMETRY USING MONTE-CARLO SIMULATIONS FOR OCCUPATIONAL DOSE MONITORING IN INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY: THE RESULTS OF A PROOF OF CONCEPT IN A CLINICAL SETTING.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2021Article
- Eye protection in interventional procedures.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Article
- OCCUPATIONAL EYE LENS DOSE OVER SIX YEARS IN THE STAFF OF A US HIGH-VOLUME CANCER CENTER.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2020Article
- Challenges in Dosimetry and Radiation Dose Trends.Radiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Staff who perform fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) procedures are among the most highly radiation-exposed groups in medicine. However, there are limited data on monthly or annual doses (or dose trends over time) for these workers. Purpose To summarize occupational badge doses (lens dose equivalent and effective dose equivalent values) for medical staff performing or assisting with FGI procedures in 3 recent years after accounting for uninformative values and one- versus two-badge monitoring protocol. Materials and Methods Badge dose entries of medical workers believed to have performed or assisted with FGI procedures were retrospectively collected from the largest dosimetry provider in the United States for 49 991, 81 561, and 125 669 medical staff corresponding to years 2009, 2012, and 2015, respectively. Entries judged to be uninformative of occupational doses to FGI procedures staff were excluded. Monthly and annual occupational doses were described using summary statistics. Results After exclusions, 22.2% (153 033 of 687 912) of the two- and 32.9% (450 173 of 1 366 736) of the one-badge entries were judged to be informative. There were 335 225 and 916 563 of the two- and one-badge entries excluded, respectively, with minimal readings in the above-apron badge. Among the two-badge entries, 123 595 were incomplete and 76 059 had readings indicating incorrect wear of the badges. From 2009 to 2015 there was no change in lens dose equivalent values among workers who wore one badge (
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.