ArticleThe British journal of radiology2021
An assessment of radiation use, knowledge and concerns in trainee cardiologists in Ireland.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Use of Protective Equipment and Personal Monitoring in Fluoroscopy-Guided Procedures: A Case Study in Portugal.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate knowledge, routine use and concerns of trainee cardiologists in the Republic of Ireland regarding radiation use in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.
methodsWe handed out a Radiation Questionnaire to cardiology trainees in February 2020 at the Irish Cardiac Society "Spring Meeting". The questionnaire assessed radiation protection use amongst trainees and tested knowledge of X-ray basics.
resultsMany trainees report inadequate access to properly sized lead protection, and infrequent dosimeter usage. Over one-third of trainees report musculoskeletal issues from wearing leads, the majority of whom use correct size lead <60% of the time.33.3% report radiation concerns will affect their decision making regarding subspeciality training, but notably 83.3% of females and only 19% of males surveyed report this, showing this is a bigger issue for females in cardiology. Less than half of trainees feel adequately educated about radiation.
conclusionOur assessment show deficiencies in the provision and use of personal protective equipment to trainees, highlights extra radiation concerns of female cardiology trainees, and notes gaps in knowledge in radiation use. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Our assessment highlights deficiencies in the education of cardiology trainees regarding ionizing radiation, and suggests this area needs to be improved upon.
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.