Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32372284›Full record

ReviewRadiation and environmental biophysics2020

Eurados review of retrospective dosimetry techniques for internal exposures to ionising radiation and their applications.

A Giussani, M A Lopez, H Romm, A Testa, E A Ainsbury, M Degteva, S Della Monaca, G Etherington, P Fattibene, I Güclu and 15 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. The new study of UK nuclear test veterans.Journal of radiological protection : official journal of the Society for Radiological Protection · 2022
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

25 authors at 16 institutions in 12 countries.

A GiussaniBfS-Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, Ingolstädter Landstr. 1, 85764, Oberschleißheim, Germany. agiussani@bfs.de.
M A LopezCIEMAT - Centro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas, Av.da Complutense 40, 28040, Madrid, Spain.
H RommBfS-Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, Ingolstädter Landstr. 1, 85764, Oberschleißheim, Germany.
A TestaENEA Casaccia Research Center, Via Anguillarese 301, Santa Maria di Galeria, 00123, Rome, Italy.
E A AinsburyPublic Health England - Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0RQ, Oxon, UK.
M DegtevaUrals Research Center for Radiation Medicine (URCRM), Vorovskt str. 68A, Chelyabinsk, 454141, Russia.
S Della MonacaIstituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161, Rome, Italy.
G EtheringtonPublic Health England - Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0RQ, Oxon, UK.
P FattibeneIstituto Superiore di Sanità, Viale Regina Elena 299, 00161, Rome, Italy.
I GücluCekmece Nuclear Research and Training Center Radiobiology Unit Yarımburgaz, Turkish Atomic Energy Authority, Istanbul, Turkey.
A JaworskaDSA-Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Skøyen, P. O. Box 329, 0213, Oslo, Norway.
D C LloydPublic Health England - Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0RQ, Oxon, UK.
I MalátováSURO-National Radiation Protection Institute, Bartoskova 28, 14000, Prague, Czech Republic.
S McComishUS Transuranium and Uranium Registries, Washington State University, Richland, WA, USA.
D MeloMelohill Technology, 1 Research Court, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA.
J OskoNational Centre for Nuclear Research, A. Soltana 7, 05400, Otwock, Poland.
A RojoARN-Nuclear Regulatory Authority of Argentina, Av. del Libertador 8250, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
S Roch-LefevreInstitut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, IRSN, Pôle Santé et Environnement, Direction de la Santé, Fontenay-aux-Roses, France.
L RoyInstitut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, IRSN, Pôle Santé et Environnement, Direction de la Santé, Fontenay-aux-Roses, France.
E ShishkinaUrals Research Center for Radiation Medicine (URCRM), Vorovskt str. 68A, Chelyabinsk, 454141, Russia.
N SotnikSouthern Urals Biophysics Institute (SUBI), Ozyorsk, Chelyabinsk Region, 456780, Russia.
S Y TolmachevUS Transuranium and Uranium Registries, Washington State University, Richland, WA, USA.
A WieserInstitute of Radiation Medicine, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Ingolstädter Landstr. 1, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany.
C WodaInstitute of Radiation Medicine, Helmholtz Zentrum München, Ingolstädter Landstr. 1, 85764, Neuherberg, Germany.
M YoungmanPublic Health England - Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Chilton, Didcot, OX11 0RQ, Oxon, UK.
Public Health England · GBFederal Office for Radiation Protection · DEHelmholtz Zentrum München · DEInstitut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire · FRIstituto Superiore di Sanità · ITWashington State University Tri-Cities · USCentro de Investigaciones Energéticas, Medioambientales y Tecnológicas · ESChelyabinsk State University · RUComisión Nacional de Energía Atómica · ARInstitute of Biophysics · RUNational Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development · ITNational Centre for Nuclear Research · PLNational Radiation Protection Institute · CZNorwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority · NOTurkish Atomic Energy Authority · TRUrals Research Center for Radiation Medicine · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This work presents an overview of the applications of retrospective dosimetry techniques in case of incorporation of radionuclides. The fact that internal exposures are characterized by a spatially inhomogeneous irradiation of the body, which is potentially prolonged over large periods and variable over time, is particularly problematic for biological and electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) dosimetry methods when compared with external exposures. The paper gives initially specific information about internal dosimetry methods, the most common cytogenetic techniques used in biological dosimetry and EPR dosimetry applied to tooth enamel. Based on real-case scenarios, dose estimates obtained from bioassay data as well as with biological and/or EPR dosimetry are compared and critically discussed. In most of the scenarios presented, concomitant external exposures were responsible for the greater portion of the received dose. As no assay is available which can discriminate between radiation of different types and different LETs on the basis of the type of damage induced, it is not possible to infer from these studies specific conclusions valid for incorporated radionuclides alone. The biological dosimetry assays and EPR techniques proved to be most applicable in cases when the radionuclides are almost homogeneously distributed in the body. No compelling evidence was obtained in other cases of extremely inhomogeneous distribution. Retrospective dosimetry needs to be optimized and further developed in order to be able to deal with real exposure cases, where a mixture of both external and internal exposures will be encountered most of the times.

Indexed as

Radiation, IonizingAnimalsElectron Spin Resonance SpectroscopyHumansRadioisotopesRadiometryRadioisotopesBiokineticsBiological dosimetryEPR dosimetryInternal dosimetryInternal exposures

Identifiers

PMID32372284
PMCPMC7369133
OpenAlexW3023393320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.