ArticleJournal of biomedical physics & engineering2022
A Study of Radiation Protection Standards Compliance in Hospital Radiographic Departments in Iran.
Article in Journal of biomedical physics & engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Radiographers' Application of the Radiation Protection Principles of Justification, Optimisation and Dose Limits in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Comparison of Dose-Volume Histograms of Three Whole Breast Radiotherapy Regimes: Conventional, Normal Hypofractionation and FAST-FORWARD Hypofractionation.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
- Development of Lead-Free Materials for Radiation Shielding in Medical Settings: A Review.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The X-ray is a critical diagnostic and therapeutic tool with harmful effects. The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has some recommendations regarding applying radiation protection principles. Objective: This study aimed to determine the standards of the typical radiation protection in radiographic departments of hospitals in Iran. Material and Methods: In this cross-sectional descriptive study, the usual radiation protection standards in places, such as the physical environment of the control and waiting rooms, radiographic devices, the physical space of the darkroom, and shielding facilities, were investigated using a checklist in Iran. A total of 84 hospitals in 51 cities throughout Iran were randomly selected, and the checklists were distributed to the radiation protection officers. In hospitals with multiple radiography rooms, the radiation protection officers were asked to complete the checklist about the room with the highest workload as a baseline to evaluate their facilities. Finally, the authors reviewed all checklists. Results: In radiology departments in control and waiting rooms, the mean of radiation protection was 71.9%. Pregnancy and radiation warning signs and labels were present in 96.1% of the parameters, while gonad shielding protocols were not presented. Conclusion: The principles of observed radiation protection were unsatisfactory, and it is recommended that surveillance be conducted at frequent intervals.
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.