ReviewIranian journal of public health2020
The Efficacy of Periodic Complete Blood Count Tests in Evaluation of the Health Status of Radiation Workers in Iran: A Systematic Review.
Review in Iranian journal of public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Preliminary Study of Spontaneous Micronuclei and Hematology Profile of Workers Exposed to Low-Dose Radiation.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
- Low-dose ionizing radiation and the exposure-lag response: protocol for a prospective cohort study on The Health Effects of Chongqing Occupational Radiation Workers.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeriodic medical examinations of radiation workers are routinely conducted in many countries. Although low dose radiation (LDR) is not expected to cause a significant effect on blood count, the periodic examination usually includes reviewing the work history, general medical history, a physical examination and collecting a blood sample. Despite lymphocytes are the most sensitive cells to radiation, their counts do not show any significant change as long as the radiation level is less than a few hundreds of millisievert (mSv). In spite of this, in Iran, radiation workers, even those who work in diagnostic radiology departments, are regularly examined for blood count changes.
methodsAfter a detailed search in PubMed, ISI, Scopus, SID and Google Scholar, only 12 out of 650 articles matched our criteria. A review of these 12 reports was conducted. The full texts were fully reviewed by the authors.
resultsThe complete blood count (CBC) test has a very low efficacy in evaluation of the adverse health effects of ionizing radiation in radiation workers. Therefore, finding alternative methods with a higher efficacy is recommended.
conclusionCBC tests cannot be introduced as valid markers of potential radiation effects in most occupational exposures. Given this consideration, in periodic tests of radiation workers, cytogenetic tests can be the gold-standard method. In particular, due to its relatively low cost and good sensitivity and specificity, the dicentric assay can be promising. Moreover, the simple and rapid evaluation of micronuclei by fast automated scoring systems can be a good alternative for current low efficacy CBC tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32548042PMC7283191W3015433172What 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.