ArticleDEN open2021
A questionnaire survey on radiation protection among 282 medical staff from 26 endoscopy-fluoroscopy departments in Japan.
Article in DEN open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Qualitative descriptions of health protective behavior in catheterization laboratory nurses exposed to occupational radiation hazards.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Managing radiation safety and protection in gastroenterology in Japan: insights from the REX-GI study.Journal of gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Article
- Occupational radiation exposure to the lens of the eyes and its protection during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.Scientific reports · 2023Observational
- How should radiation exposure be handled in fluoroscopy-guided endoscopic procedures in the field of gastroenterology?Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2022Review
- Diagnostic Reference Levels for Fluoroscopy-guided Gastrointestinal Procedures in Japan from the REX-GI Study: A Nationwide Multicentre Prospective Observational Study.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 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
29 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: It is essential for endoscopists, technologists, and nurses to understand radiation protection. However, protective equipment usage is still low, and there is little awareness of radiation protection in practice. Methods: We conducted a questionnaire survey on radiation protection from January to February 2020. The participants were medical staff, including medical doctors, nurses, and radiological and endoscopy technician in endoscopy-fluoroscopy departments. The questionnaire included 14 multiple-choice questions divided among three parts: background, equipment, and knowledge. Results: We surveyed a total of 282 subjects from 26 institutions. There were 168 medical doctors (60%), 90 nurses (32%), and 24 technologists (9%). Although almost all staff members (99%) always wore a lead apron, only a few wore a thyroid collar (32%) and lead glasses (21%). The rate of wearing a radiation dosimeter was insufficient (69%), especially among doctors (52%). A few subjects knew the radiation exposure dose of each procedure (15%), and slightly over half had attended lectures on radiation protection (64%) and knew about the three principles of radiation protection (59%). Protection adherence did not differ by years of experience, knowledge of fluoroscopy, awareness of radiation exposure doses, or attendance at basic lectures on radiation protection. However, medical doctors who were aware of the radiation exposure dose of each procedure were significantly more likely to wear dosimeters than those who were not (p = 0.0008). Conclusion: Medical staff in endoscopy departments in Japan do not have enough radiation protection equipment or education.
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.