Trial reportScientific reports2020
Occupational radiation exposure in femoral artery approach is higher than radial artery approach during coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Minimizing scattered radiation dose in cardiac catheterization laboratory during interventional procedures using lead free drape - MILD study.Indian heart journalTrial
- Occupational Hazards in Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories: Radiation and Beyond-ANMCO Position Paper Update 2026.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- A comparison of patient dose and occupational eye dose to the operator and nursing staff during transcatheter cardiac and endovascular procedures.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Occupational and Patient Radiation Dose and Quality Implications of Femoral Access Imaging During Coronary Angiography.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 13 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical radiation exposure is a significant concern for interventional cardiologists (IC). This study was aimed at estimating the radiation exposure of IC operators and assistants in real clinical practice. The radiation exposure of the operator and assistant was evaluated by conducting two types of procedures via coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on 1090 patients in 11-cardiovascular centers in Korea. Radiation exposure was measured using an electronic personal dosimeter (EPD). EPD were attached at 3 points on each participant: on the apron on the left anterior chest (A1), under the apron on the sternum (A2), and on the thyroid shield (T). Average radiation exposure (ARE) of operators at A1, A2, and T was 19.219 uSv, 4.398 uSv, and 16.949 uSv during CAG and 68.618 uSv, 15.213 uSv, and 51.197 uSv during PCI, respectively. ARE of assistants at A1, A2, and T was 4.941 uSv, 0.860 uSv, and 5.232 uSv during CAG and 20.517 uSv, 4.455 uSv, and 16.109 uSv during PCI, respectively. AED of operator was 3.4 times greater during PCI than during CAG.
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.