ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Electromagnetic Exposure of Personnel Involved in Cardiac MRI Examinations in 1.5T, 3T and 7T Scanners.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Simulation Study of Radio Frequency Safety and the Optimal Size of a Single-Channel Surface Radio Frequency Coil for Mice at 9.4 T Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Complex Electromagnetic Issues Associated with the Use of Electric Vehicles in Urban Transportation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: It has been hypothesised that a significant increase in the use of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), for example, when examining COVID-19 convalescents using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), has an influence the exposure profiles of medical personnel to static magnetic fields (STmf). (2) Methods: Static exposure to STmf (SEmf) was recorded during activities that modelled performing CMR by radiographers. The motion-induced time variability of that exposure (TVEmf) was calculated from SEmf samples. The results were compared with: (i) labour law requirements; (ii) the distribution of vertigo perception probability near MRI magnets; and (iii) the exposure profile when actually performing a head MRI. (3) Results: The exposure profiles of personnel managing 42 CMR scans (modelled using medium (1.5T), high (3T) and ultrahigh (7T) field scanners) were significantly different than when managing a head MRI. The majority of SEmf and TVEmf samples (up to the 95th percentile) were at low vertigo perception probability (SEmf < 500 mT, TVEmf < 600 mT/s), but a small fraction were at medium/high levels; (4) Conclusion: Even under the "normal working conditions" defined for SEmf (STmf < 2T) by labour legislation (Directive 2013/35/EC), increased CMR usage increases vertigo-related hazards experienced by MRI personnel (a re-evaluation of electromagnetic safety hazards is suggested in the case of these or similar changes in work organisation).
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.