ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2020
Radiation protection in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison between robot-assisted and manual percutaneous coronary intervention - an updated systematic review, meta-analysis, propensity-matched investigation, and trial sequential analysis.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2025Pooled it
- Fast 3D whole-body occupational dose estimation in interventional radiology using physics-informed deep learning.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Impact of Ceiling Suspended Shield Size on Primary Operator Radiation Dose During Coronary Angiography and Intervention.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Qualitative descriptions of health protective behavior in catheterization laboratory nurses exposed to occupational radiation hazards.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Outcome of Ultrasound-Guided Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Versus Cephalic Cutdown Permanent Pacemaker Implantation.Cureus · 2026Article
- Innovations in Diagnosis and Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Optimizing Radiation Safety Without Compromising Quality of Care.JACC. Case reports · 2025Article
- Radiation Exposure During Invasive Cardiovascular Procedures: Portable Shielding System Versus Standard Lead Aprons.Cureus · 2024Article
- A multicentre survey of knowledge and implementation of radiation protection techniques in cardiac cath-lab medical personnel.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- Assessment of dosimetric approaches in evaluating radiation exposure for interventional cardiologists in Sri Lanka.Radiological physics and technology · 2024Article
- Differing radiation exposure in scrub technicians and rotating staff in Cardiac catheterization laboratory: occupation matters.The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology · 2024Article
- Lead Cap Use in Interventional Cardiology: Time to Protect Our Head in the Cardiac Catheterisation Laboratory?Interventional cardiology (London, England) · 2023Review
- A Deep-Learning-Based Guidewire Compliant Control Method for the Endovascular Surgery Robot.Micromachines · 2022Article
- Integrity of personal radiation protective equipment (PRPE): a 4-year longitudinal follow-up study.Insights into imaging · 2022Article
- Understanding the harm of low-dose computed tomography radiation to the body (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2022Review
- Current topics in interventional cardiology.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
- Use of 3D electroanatomic mapping systems allows us to see the past and predict the future of SVT ablation.Indian pacing and electrophysiology journalArticle
- Radiation exposure protection: small things matter.Cardiovascular journal of AfricaArticle
- Comparison of patient radiation exposure in coronary angiography via the trans-radial versus trans-femoral approach.Indian heart journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The trend towards more minimally invasive procedures in the past few decades has resulted in an exponential growth in fluoroscopy-guided catheter-based cardiology procedures. As these techniques are becoming more commonly used and developed, the adverse effects of radiation exposure to the patient, operator, and ancillary staff have been a subject of concern. Although occupational radiation dose limits are being monitored and seldom reached, exposure to chronic, low dose radiation has been shown to have harmful biological effects that are not readily apparent until years after. Given this, it is imperative that reducing radiation dose exposure in the cardiac catheterization laboratory remains a priority. Staff education and training, radiation dose monitoring, ensuring use of proper personal protective equipment, employment of shields, and various procedural techniques in minimizing radiation must always be diligently employed. Special care and consideration should be extended to pregnant women working in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. This review article presents a practical approach to radiation dose management and discusses best practice recommendations in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.
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.