ArticleSA journal of radiology2023
Radiology blues: Comparing occupational blue-light exposure to recommended safety standards.
Article in SA journal of radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Are you always working in the dark? The impact of limited daylight exposure on radiologists' health.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
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 blue-light hazard is a well-documented entity addressing the detrimental health effects of high-energy visible light photons in the range of 305 nm - 450 nm. Radiologists spend long hours in front of multiple light-emitting diode (LED)-based diagnostic monitors emitting blue light, predisposing them to potentially higher blue-light dosages than other health professionals. Objectives: The authors aimed to quantify the blue light that radiology registrars are exposed to in daily viewing of diagnostic monitors and compared this with international occupational safety standards. Method: A limited cross-sectional observational study was conducted. Four radiology registrars at two academic hospitals in Bloemfontein from 01 October 2021 to 30 November 2021 participated. Diagnostic monitor viewing times on a standard workday were determined. Different image modalities obtained from 01 June 2019 to 30 November 2019 were assessed, and blue-light radiance was determined using a spectroscope and image analysis software. Blue-light radiance values were compared with international safety standards. Results: Radiology registrars spent on average 380 min in front of a diagnostic display unit daily. Blue-light radiance from diagnostic monitors was elevated in higher-intensity images such as chest radiographs and lower for darker images like MRI brain studies. The total blue-light radiance from diagnostic display units was more than 10 000 times below the recommended threshold value for blue-light exposure. Conclusion: Blue-light radiance from diagnostic displays measured well below the recommended values for occupational safety. Hence, blue-light exposure from diagnostic monitors does not significantly add to the occupational health burden of radiologists. Contribution: Despite spending long hours in front of diagnostic monitors, radiologists' exposure to effective blue-light radiance from monitors was far below hazardous values. This suggests that blue-light exposure from diagnostic monitors does not increase the occupational health burden of radiologists.
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.