ArticleIndian journal of anaesthesia2022
A survey on knowledge, attitude, and practices of workplace radiation safety amongst anaesthesiology personnel in northern Indian tertiary care institutes.
Article in Indian journal of anaesthesia, 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Ergonomic challenges and intraoperative concerns during O-armIndian journal of anaesthesia · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Exposure to ionising radiation to Anaesthesiology consultants, residents, technicians and nurses (Anaesthesiology personnel) is steadily increasing as a consequence of growing usage of imaging technology for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey of Anaesthesiology professionals (consultants, residents, technicians and nursing staff) working in three major tertiary care medical institutes in northern India regarding the existing knowledge, attitudes and practices of radiation safety at their workplaces. Methods: A printed and validated 30-point questionnaire was distributed. Questions were graded into the domains of demographics (6 questions), knowledge (9 questions), attitude (4 questions) and practice (11 questions). Data obtained from the responses was collated and analysed statistically. Results: Out of the 403 questionnaires distributed, 222 were returned completed (55%). Majority of the respondents were residents (53.60%) and males (57.20%). Many were unaware of the principle of As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA), (70.7%) regarding collimators (65.85%) and their usage (41.9%). Maximum respondents stressed on the necessity of knowing the exposure dosage of radiations (89.2%) and were concerned regarding the same (87.8%). Lead apron was the commonest protection equipment and 97.3% of them were not using dosimeters. Highest levels of knowledge, attitude, and practices were demonstrated by the consultants. In terms of practices, the technicians fared better than the residents. Conclusion: Knowledge, attitude and practices regarding radiation protection issues and doses of radiological procedures is limited. Although all the cadres scored high on their attitude scores, the practice sector requires improvement.
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.