ArticleBJR open2019
Knowledge of radiation legislation and radiation exposure in common radiological investigations among final year medical students, foundation doctors, specialist radiology registrars and radiographers at a UK university teaching hospital.
Article in BJR open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge and perceptions of ionising radiation among Croatian general practitioners: is there cause for concern?Arhiv za higijenu rada i toksikologiju · 2025Article
- Comparison of the effectiveness of radiation protection principles training through multimedia and instructional booklet on the awareness of operating room staff.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
- Awareness of radiation risks by medical students & referrers requesting radiological examinations in the North of Scotland: an audit.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Article
- Response to: The Importance of Radiation Protection Education and Training for Medical Professionals of All Specialties.Cardiovascular and interventional 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveJunior doctors routinely request radiological investigations for patients. Prior studies have noted that among this group there is a lack of knowledge on radiation legislation and radiation exposure in common radiological investigations. However, no studies have compared this against radiology trainees and radiographers. We compared knowledge of radiation legislation and radiation exposure in common radiological investigations among final year medical students (FYMS), foundation year doctors (FY1, FY2) against specialist radiology trainees (SRT) and radiographers (RG).
methodsA 12-question multiple choice questionnaire (MCQ) was distributed to FYMS, FY1, FY2, SRT and RG at a UK teaching hospital. Questions assessed knowledge of radiation legislation and radiation-dose estimates of common radiological investigations. Mean MCQ scores were compared using one-way ANOVA and Tukey post-test to determine statistical significance (
results127 participants were included in the study. Mean scores (%) for FYMS (49.3%), FY1 (52.6%) and FY2 (51.1%) were significantly lower compared to SRT (64.4%) and RG (66.3%) (
conclusionFYMS, FY1 and FY2 knowledge of radiation legislation and radiation exposure in common radiological investigations was poor compared to SRT and RG. Patients require knowledge of radiation risk to provide informed consent as per IRMER regulations, thus we propose formal teaching on the subject matter to promote radiation safety culture among medical undergraduates and postgraduates. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: First study to compare knowledge of radiation legislation and radiation exposure in common radiological investigations between medical students and junior doctors to radiology trainees and radiographers.
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.