Observational studyMedicine2020
Usefulness of an additional lead shielding device in reducing occupational radiation exposure during interventional endoscopic procedures: An observational study.
Observational study in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Guideline for Minimizing Radiation Exposure of Interventionalists during Fluoroscopy-guided Interventional Procedures].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2024Guideline
- Effect of radioprotective curtain length on the scattered dose rate distribution and endoscopist eye lens dose with an over-couch fluoroscopy system.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2024Article
- Minimizing radiation exposure in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a review for medical personnel.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2022Review
- Gonad irradiation from fluoroscopy during upper limb orthopaedic procedures in a UK District General Hospital.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adoption of interventional endoscopic procedures is increasing with increasing prevalence of diseases. However, medical radiation exposure is concerning; therefore, radiation protection for medical staff is important. However, there is limited information on the usefulness of an additional lead shielding device during interventional endoscopic procedures. Therefore, we aimed to determine whether an additional lead shielding device protects medical staff from radiation.An X-ray unit (CUREVISTA; Hitachi Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) with an over-couch X-ray system was used. Fluoroscopy-associated scattered radiation was measured using a water phantom placed at the locations of the endoscopist, assistant, nurse, and clinical engineer. For each location, measurements were performed at the gonad and thyroid gland/eye levels. Comparisons were performed between with and without the additional lead shielding device and with and without a gap in the shielding device. Additionally, a clinical study was performed with 27 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures.The scattered radiation dose was lower with than without additional lead shielding at all medical staff locations and decreased by 84.7%, 82.8%, 78.2%, and 83.7%, respectively, at the gonad level and by 89.2%, 86.4%, 91.2%, and 87.0%, respectively, at the thyroid gland/eye level. Additionally, the scattered radiation dose was lower without than with a gap in the shielding device at all locations.An additional lead shielding device could protect medical staff from radiation during interventional endoscopic procedures. However, gaps in protective equipment reduce effectiveness and should be eliminated.
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.