ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Evaluation of a New Real-Time Dosimeter Sensor for Interventional Radiology Staff.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transition from a detector-dose-based to a CNR-based cerebral angiography system: evaluation of image quality and radiation dose.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
- Mobile head CT with integrated radiation shielding reduces the need for additional personal protective equipment.The British journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Fundamental evaluation of a novel upright shield to protect medical personnel from scattered radiation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography using a C-arm system.Journal of radiation research · 2026Article
- Occupational radiation exposure of zoo veterinarians during x-ray procedures: a real-time dosimetry study.Journal of occupational health · 2026Observational
- Safer fluoroscopy guided femoral access using a passive robotic support with a 3D printed needle and guidewire inserter.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Article
- Evaluation of radiation protection by lead glasses for interventional radiology physicians wearing prescription glasses: considering dose reduction by prescription glasses excluding lead.Journal of radiation research · 2025Article
- Assessment of lens absorbed dose by radiological technologists during mobile X-ray radiography: a comparison between computed radiography and flat panel detector systems.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- Development of a headgear-based eye protection device for physicians performing fluoroscopy-guided bronchoscopy.Journal of radiation research · 2025Article
- Radiation Exposure to the Brains of Interventional Radiology Staff: A Phantom Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Real time eye dose reduction in fluoroscopy with auditory and visual feedback dosimeter through swine model experiments.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Effect of backscatter radiation on the occupational eye-lens dose.Journal of radiation research · 2024Article
- Epitaxial SiC Dosimeters and Flux Monitoring Detectors for Proton Therapy Beams.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Update on Radiation Safety in the Cath Lab - Moving Toward a "Lead-Free" Environment.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & InterventionsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In 2011, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommended a significant reduction in the lens-equivalent radiation dose limit, thus from an average of 150 to 20 mSv/year over 5 years. In recent years, the occupational dose has been rising with the increased sophistication of interventional radiology (IVR); management of IVR staff radiation doses has become more important, making real-time radiation monitoring of such staff desirable. Recently, the i3 real-time occupational exposure monitoring system (based on RaySafeTM) has replaced the conventional i2 system. Here, we compared the i2 and i3 systems in terms of sensitivity (batch uniformity), tube-voltage dependency, dose linearity, dose-rate dependency, and angle dependency. The sensitivity difference (batch uniformity) was approximately 5%, and the tube-voltage dependency was <±20% between 50 and 110 kV. Dose linearity was good (R2 = 1.00); a slight dose-rate dependency (~20%) was evident at very high dose rates (250 mGy/h). The i3 dosimeter showed better performance for the lower radiation detection limit compared with the i2 system. The horizontal and vertical angle dependencies of i3 were superior to those of i2. Thus, i3 sensitivity was higher over a wider angle range compared with i2, aiding the measurement of scattered radiation. Unlike the i2 sensor, the influence of backscattered radiation (i.e., radiation from an angle of 180°) was negligible. Therefore, the i3 system may be more appropriate in areas affected by backscatter. In the future, i3 will facilitate real-time dosimetry and dose management during IVR and other applications.
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.