Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33991223›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2021

Radiation dose and diagnostic reference levels for four interventional radiology procedures: results of the prospective European multicenter survey EUCLID.

Alexander A Schegerer, Guy Frija, Graciano Paulo, Werner Jaschke, Virginia Tsapaki, Jacques Repussard, John Damilakis

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Patient radiation doses in an angiography suite at a tertiary hospital in Pretoria.Journal of the colleges of medicine of South Africa · 2026
    Article
  4. Diagnostic Radiology Services and Occupational Radiation Anxiety in Kazakhstan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors.

Alexander A SchegererDepartment of Radiation Protection and Image Processing Systems, Hirslanden AG, Hirslanden Corporate Office, Boulevard Lilienthal 2, 8152, Opfikon-Glattpark, Switzerland. alexander.schegerer@hirslanden.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0135-0726
Guy FrijaParis Descartes University, Paris, France.
Graciano PauloESTESC - Coimbra Health School, Medical Imaging and Radiotherapy Department, Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra, Rua 5 de Outubro, S. Martinho do Bispo, 3046-854, Coimbra, Portugal.
Werner JaschkeDepartment of Radiology, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Virginia TsapakiKonstantopoulio General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Jacques Repussard, St Nom la Bretèche, France.
John DamilakisSchool of Medicine, University of Crete, Iraklion, Crete, Greece.

Funding

European Commission ENER/2017/NUCL/SI2.759174
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess information reflecting radiation dose and define diagnostic reference levels (DRL) on a European basis for four interventional radiology (IR) procedures considering clinical indication, anatomical region, and procedure.

methodsA prospective European study was performed to provide data on the IR procedures percutaneous recanalization of iliac arteries, percutaneous recanalization of femoropopliteal arteries, transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma, and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Hospitals were asked to complete a questionnaire giving information on procedure, equipment, and protocol. Patient size and weight, experience of the operator graded in number of procedures performed, and complexity level of each procedure were reported. Sixteen hospitals from 13 countries could be surveyed. The percentiles of the kerma-area product, fluoroscopy time, cumulative air kerma at the interventional reference point, and number of images were determined. The impact of equipment, year of installation, and complexity level of the procedure on dose were analyzed.

resultsDRLs based on clinical indication were defined. Dose values varied considerably within hospitals, between them, and within each subgroup of complexity level. The use of state-of-the-art equipment reduced dose significantly by 52%. Although dose also varied within each subgroup of complexity level, for transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage, dose significantly correlated with complexity.

conclusionsThis was the first study reporting exposure practice and defining DRLs based on clinical indication for four IR procedures on a European basis. These DRLs can serve as a baseline for comparison with local practice, the study as a guideline for future surveys. KEY POINTS: • The use of state-of-the-art angiographic equipment reduces dose significantly. • A significant correlation between radiation dose and complexity level is found. • Dose values vary considerably, both within and between individual hospitals, and within each complexity level of interventional radiology procedure.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularChemoembolization, TherapeuticLiver NeoplasmsDiagnostic Reference LevelsHumansProspective StudiesRadiation DosageRadiology, InterventionalSurveys and QuestionnairesDiagnostic reference levelsEuropeInterventional radiologyRadiation dosageRadiation protection

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.