Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34917311›Full record

ArticleFrontline gastroenterology2021

Attitudes to radiation safety and cholangiogram interpretation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): a UK survey.

Keith Siau, George Webster, Mark Wright, Ben Maher, Brian Stedman, Gavin Johnson, Saqib Ahmad, Nadeem Tehami

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontline gastroenterology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Keith SiauDepartment of Gastroenterology, Dudley Group of Hospitals NHS Trust, Dudley, West Midlands, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1273-9561
George WebsterDepartment of Gastroenterology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Mark WrightDepartment of Hepatology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Ben MaherDepartment of Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Brian StedmanDepartment of Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Gavin JohnsonDepartment of Gastroenterology, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Saqib AhmadDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton-In-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, UK.
Nadeem TehamiDepartment of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFluoroscopy during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) exposes staff and patients to potentially harmful ionizing radiation. We performed a UK survey to explore trainee and trainer attitudes to radiation protection and cholangiogram interpretation in ERCP.

methodsAn electronic 10-point survey was prospectively distributed to endoscopy unit leads, training programme directors between October and November 2019. Only UK-based ERCP trainees and trainers with hands-on procedural exposure were eligible for the survey.

resultsThe survey was completed by 107 respondents (58 trainees and 49 trainers), with an estimated overall response rate of 46%. Overall, 49% of respondents were up to date with their radiation protection course, 38% were aware of European Basic safety standards directive (BSSD), 38% wore radiation protection goggles, and 40% were aware of the average radiation screening dose per ERCP procedure. Compared with trainers, trainees were less likely to routinely wear thyroid protection shields (76% vs 92%; p=0.028), have awareness of the BSSD (20% vs 49%; p=0.037) or know their average procedural radiation dosages (21% vs 63%; p<0.001). With regard to cholangiogram interpretation, only 26% had received formal training, with 97% of trainees expressing a desire for further training.

conclusionThis survey highlights a relative complacency in safety attitudes to radiation protection during ERCP. These data provide impetus to improve training and quality assurance in radiation protection, which should be regarded as a mandatory safety aspect prior to commencing hands-on ERCP training.

Indexed as

endoscopic proceduresendoscopic retrograde pancreatographyendoscopy

Identifiers

PMID34917311
PMCPMC8640384

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.