Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32846829›Full record

Observational studyMedicine2020

Usefulness of an additional lead shielding device in reducing occupational radiation exposure during interventional endoscopic procedures: An observational study.

Reiko Yamada, Yusuke Saimyo, Kyosuke Tanaka, Aiji Hattori, Yuhei Umeda, Naoki Kuroda, Junya Tsuboi, Yasuhiko Hamada, Yoshiyuki Takei

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Reiko YamadaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Yusuke SaimyoDepartment of Clinical Engineering, Ise Red Cross Hospital, Ise.
Kyosuke TanakaDepartment of Endoscopy, Mie University Hospital, Tsu, Mie, Japan.
Aiji HattoriDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Yuhei UmedaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Naoki KurodaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Junya TsuboiDepartment of Endoscopy, Mie University Hospital, Tsu, Mie, Japan.
Yasuhiko HamadaDepartment of Endoscopy, Mie University Hospital, Tsu, Mie, Japan.
Yoshiyuki TakeiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Mie University Hospital · JPIse Red Cross Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeFluoroscopyGonadsHumansOccupational ExposureOccupational InjuriesPhantoms, ImagingProtective DevicesRadiation DosageRadiation ExposureRadiation InjuriesRadiation ProtectionRadiography, InterventionalThyroid Gland

Identifiers

PMID32846829
PMCPMC7447393
OpenAlexW3079117045

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.