Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34538079›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of radiology2021

Occupational radiation exposure in doctors: an analysis of exposure rates over 25 years.

Amy R Sharkey, Parthivi Gambhir, Sepas Saraskani, Ross Walker, Ashcaan Hajilou, Paul Bassett, Navneet Sandhu, Peter Croasdale, Ian Honey, Athanasios Diamantopoulos and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract 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 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Review
  3. Family-building patterns of proceduralist and non-proceduralist physicians.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. X-ray scatter in projection radiography.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amy R SharkeyDepartment of Radiology, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0916-9123
Parthivi GambhirKing's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Sepas SaraskaniKing's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Ross WalkerKing's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Ashcaan HajilouKing's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Paul BassettStatsconsultancy Ltd, Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom.
Navneet SandhuDepartment of Medical Physics, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Peter CroasdaleDepartment of Medical Physics, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Ian HoneyDepartment of Medical Physics, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Athanasios DiamantopoulosDepartment of Radiology, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Vicky GohDepartment of Radiology, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
King's College London · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHealthcare professionals' occupational exposure to ionising radiation may be increasing due to increasing use of imaging and image-guided intervention. This study aims to assess the occupational exposure of doctors over a 25-year period at an NHS teaching hospital.

methodsDosemeter measurements were collected prospectively from 1995 to 2019. Two retrospective analyses were performed over time (first including all measurements, second excluding "zero-dose" measurements), and by speciality. Group comparisons were undertaken using multilevel linear regression; a p-value <0.05 was deemed significant.

results8,892 measurements (3,983 body, 1,514 collar, 649 eye, 2,846 hand), of which 3,350 were non-zero measurements (1,541 body, 883 collar, 155 eye, 771 hand), were included. Whole dataset analysis found a significant decrease in exposure for radiologists and cardiologists, as measured by body, hand and collar dosemeters over the last 25 years (

conclusionsWhilst ionising radiation remains an occupational risk for doctors, the overall decreasing trend in occupational exposure is reassuring. However, a significant rise in eye dose for radiologists, surgeons and anaesthetists is concerning, and close monitoring is required to prevent future issues. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This paper is one of few evaluating the occupational radiation exposure to doctors over a 25-year period, showing that although most dosemeter measurements reflect decreasing exposure, the increase in eye exposure warrants caution.

Indexed as

HumansOccupational ExposurePhysiciansProspective StudiesRadiation ExposureTertiary Care CentersUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID34538079
PMCPMC8553192
OpenAlexW3200735714

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.