ArticleEuropean radiology2022
Health effects related to exposure of static magnetic fields and acoustic noise-comparison between MR and CT radiographers.
Article in European radiology, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Combining optimized three-dimensional ZOOMit real inversion recovery with T2-preparation to shorten the delay interval and scan time for endolymphatic hydrops evaluation in patients with Ménière's disease.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Occupational Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields-Different from General Public Exposure and Laboratory Studies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe explored the prevalence of health complaints subjectively associated with static magnetic field (SMF) and acoustic noise exposure among MR radiographers in Sweden, using CT radiographers as a control group. Additionally, we explored radiographers' use of strategies to mitigate adverse health effects.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was sent to all hospitals with MR units in Sweden. MR and/or CT personnel reported prevalence and attribution of symptoms (vertigo/dizziness, nausea, metallic taste, illusion of movement, ringing sensations/tinnitus, headache, unusual drowsiness/tiredness, forgetfulness, difficulties concentrating, and difficulties sleeping) within the last year. We used logistic regression to test associations between sex, age, stress, SMF strength, working hours, and symptom prevalence. Data regarding hearing function, work-environmental noise, and strategies to mitigate adverse symptoms were also analysed.
resultsIn total, 529 out of 546 respondents from 86 hospitals were eligible for participation. A ≥ 20 working hours/week/modality cut-off rendered 342 participants grouped into CT (n = 75), MR (n = 121), or mixed personnel (n = 146). No significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between groups. Working at ≥ 3T increased SMF-associated symptoms as compared with working at ≤ 1.5T (OR: 2.03, CI
conclusionNo significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between MR and CT radiographers. However, working at 3T increased the risk of SMF symptoms, and stress increased adverse health effects. Noise nuisance was considered more problematic by CT than MR personnel. KEY POINTS: • No significant differences in symptom prevalence were seen between MR and CT radiographers. • Working at ≥ 3 T doubled the odds of experiencing SMF symptoms (vertigo/dizziness, nausea, metallic taste, and/or illusion of movement) as compared to working exclusively at ≤ 1.5 T. • Work-related acoustic noise was less well mitigated and was rated as more troublesome by CT personnel than by MR personnel.
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.