ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Non-Lead Protective Aprons for the Protection of Interventional Radiology Physicians from Radiation Exposure in Clinical Settings: An Initial Study.
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 21 papers.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Kirschner wire-assisted positioning technique reduces operative time and fluoroscopy exposure in proximal humeral PHILOS plate placement: a retrospective comparative study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Article
- Fundamental study of digital subtraction angiography using dose characteristic analysis of different protocols in lower limb arterial disease.Fukushima journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Occupational radiation exposure of zoo veterinarians during x-ray procedures: a real-time dosimetry study.Journal of occupational health · 2026Observational
- Intracardiac echocardiography guided zero-fluoroscopy workflow versus conventional fluoroscopy-guided workflow in atrial fibrillation ablation: efficiency, safety, and operator experience.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Characterization of the light and flexible nonlead aprons as an alternative to Pb-PVC.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Evaluation of radiation protection by lead glasses for interventional radiology physicians wearing prescription glasses: considering dose reduction by prescription glasses excluding lead.Journal of radiation research · 2025Article
- Assessment of lens absorbed dose by radiological technologists during mobile X-ray radiography: a comparison between computed radiography and flat panel detector systems.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- Development of a headgear-based eye protection device for physicians performing fluoroscopy-guided bronchoscopy.Journal of radiation research · 2025Article
- Radiation Exposure to the Brains of Interventional Radiology Staff: A Phantom Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Development of Lead-Free Materials for Radiation Shielding in Medical Settings: A Review.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2024Review
- How efficient are metal-polymer and dual-metals-polymer non-lead radiation shields?Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2024Article
- Eye Lens Radiation Dose to Nurses during Cardiac Interventional Radiology: An Initial Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Scatter Radiation Distribution to Radiographers, Nearby Patients and Caretakers during Portable and Pediatric Radiography Examinations.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Spatial Scattering Radiation to the Radiological Technologist during Medical Mobile Radiography.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Evaluation of a New Real-Time Dosimeter Sensor for Interventional Radiology Staff.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Awareness of Medical Radiologic Technologists of Ionizing Radiation and Radiation Protection.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Comparison of Shielding Material Dispersion Characteristics and Shielding Efficiency for Manufacturing Medical X-ray Shielding Barriers.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Development of a New Radiation Shield for the Face and Neck of IVR Physicians.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- What are useful methods to reduce occupational radiation exposure among radiological medical workers, especially for interventional radiology personnel?Radiological physics and technology · 2022Review
- Occupational eye dose correlation with neck dose and patient-related quantities in interventional cardiology procedures.Radiological physics and technology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Radiation protection/evaluation during interventional radiology (IVR) poses a very important problem. Although IVR physicians should wear protective aprons, the IVR physician may not tolerate wearing one for long procedures because protective aprons are generally heavy. In fact, orthopedic problems are increasingly reported in IVR physicians due to the strain of wearing heavy protective aprons during IVR. In recent years, non-Pb protective aprons (lighter weight, composite materials) have been developed. Although non-Pb protective aprons are more expensive than Pb protective aprons, the former aprons weigh less. However, whether the protective performance of non-Pb aprons is sufficient in the IVR clinical setting is unclear. This study compared the ability of non-Pb and Pb protective aprons (0.25- and 0.35-mm Pb-equivalents) to protect physicians from scatter radiation in a clinical setting (IVR, cardiac catheterizations, including percutaneous coronary intervention) using an electric personal dosimeter (EPD). For radiation measurements, physicians wore EPDs: One inside a personal protective apron at the chest, and one outside a personal protective apron at the chest. Physician comfort levels in each apron during procedures were also evaluated. As a result, performance (both the shielding effect (98.5%) and comfort (good)) of the non-Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective apron was good in the clinical setting. The radiation-shielding effects of the non-Pb 0.35-mm and Pb 0.35-mm-Pb-equivalent protective aprons were very similar. Therefore, non-Pb 0.35-mm Pb-equivalent protective aprons may be more suitable for providing radiation protection for IVR physicians because the shielding effect and comfort are both good in the clinical IVR setting. As non-Pb protective aprons are nontoxic and weigh less than Pb protective aprons, non-Pb protective aprons will be the preferred type for radiation protection of IVR staff, especially physicians.
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.