Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33918341›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Occupational Radiation Dose to Eye Lenses in CT-Guided Interventions Using MDCT-Fluoroscopy.

Yohei Inaba, Shin Hitachi, Munenori Watanuki, Koichi Chida

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Awareness of Medical Radiologic Technologists of Ionizing Radiation and Radiation Protection.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Radiation Exposure and Protection in Computed Tomography Fluoroscopy.Interventional radiology (Higashimatsuyama-shi (Japan) · 2022
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yohei InabaCourse of Radiological Technology, Health Sciences, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1 Seiryo, Aoba, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8575, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-5382-6346
Shin HitachiDepartment of Radiology, Tohoku University Hospital, 1-1 Seiryo, Aoba, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8575, Japan.
Munenori WatanukiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Tohoku University Hospital, 1-1 Seiryo, Aoba, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8575, Japan.
Koichi ChidaCourse of Radiological Technology, Health Sciences, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-1 Seiryo, Aoba, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8575, Japan.
Tohoku University · JPTohoku University Hospital · JP

Funding

Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. 18K12127
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In computed tomography (CT)-guided interventions (CTIs), physicians are close to a source of scattered radiation. The physician and staff are at high risk of radiation-induced injury (cataracts). Thus, dose-reducing measures for physicians are important. However, few previous reports have examined radiation doses to physicians in CTIs. This study evaluated the radiation dose to the physician and medical staff using multi detector (MD)CT-fluoroscopy, and attempted to understand radiation-protection and -reduction methods. The procedures were performed using an interventional radiology (IVR)-CT system. We measured the occupational radiation dose (physician and nurse) using a personal dosimeter in real-time, gathered CT-related parameters (fluoroscopy time, mAs, CT dose index (CTDI), and dose length product (DLP)), and performed consecutive 232 procedures in CT-guided biopsy. Physician doses (eye lens, neck, and hand; μSv, average ± SD) in our CTIs were 39.1 ± 36.3, 23.1 ± 23.7, and 28.6 ± 31.0, respectively. Nurse doses (neck and chest) were lower (2.3 ± 5.0 and 2.4 ± 4.4, respectively) than the physician doses. There were significant correlations between the physician doses (eye and neck) and related factors, such as CT-fluoroscopy mAs (eye dose: r = 0.90 and neck dose: r = 0.83). We need to understand the importance of reducing/optimizing the dose to the physician and medical staff in CTIs. Our study suggests that physician and staff doses were not significant when the procedures were performed with the appropriate radiation protection and low-dose techniques.

Indexed as

CT-guided interventionseye lensoccupational radiation doseradiation protectionscattered radiation

Identifiers

PMID33918341
PMCPMC8065869
OpenAlexW3151833528

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.