Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34235964›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2021

Radiation in orthopaedics (RIO) study: a national survey of UK orthopaedic surgeons.

Mohsen Raza, Ryan Geleit, James Houston, Rachel Williams, Alex Trompeter

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Suprapatellar versus infrapatellar tibial nailing: the ongoing debate.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mohsen RazaDepartment of Trauma & Orthopaedics, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7185-807X
Ryan GeleitDepartment of Trauma & Orthopaedics, Kingston Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
James HoustonDepartment of Trauma & Orthopaedics, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Rachel WilliamsDepartment of Radiology, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Alex TrompeterDepartment of Trauma & Orthopaedics, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBKingston Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOrthopaedic surgeons have a responsibility to minimise risks of ionising radiation to patients, themselves and staff. This study aims to establish the understanding of radiation practice, legislation and risk by orthopaedic surgeons.

methodsA nationwide online survey of UK-based orthopaedic surgeons was conducted. Participants answered 18 multiple-choice questions assessing level of radiation safety training, basic principles/knowledge of ionising radiation, relevant legislation and operating practice.

resultsA total of 406 surgeons completed the survey. 92% reported using intraoperative ionising radiation at least once per week. 38% received no formal training on radiation safety. Knowledge of basic principles of radiation and legislation was limited. There was variable knowledge when labelling an image intensifier machine and choosing its safest orientation. Poor uptake of radiation protection equipment was noted. Only 19% agreed they had adequate training in ionising radiation safety and 27% reported receiving adequate training in equipment emitting ionising radiation in the operating theatre.

conclusionMany orthopaedic surgeons in the UK do not believe they are adequately trained in radiation safety. There is a deficiency amongst practicing surgeons in basic knowledge, relevant legislation and practicalities of the use of ionising radiation in the operating room. This could potentially put patients and health-care professionals at additional risk. We recommend that a standardised national training programme on the basic principles and safety of ionising radiation is implemented for all practicing orthopaedic surgeons. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper is the first UK national survey amongst orthopaedic surgeons and is one of the largest reported internationally.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelClinical CompetenceHealth Care SurveysHumansOrthopedic ProceduresOrthopedic SurgeonsRadiation, IonizingRadiation ProtectionUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID34235964
PMCPMC9327761
OpenAlexW3177851076

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.