Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37171543›Full record

ArticleRadiologie (Heidelberg, Germany)2023

[Use of patient radiation shielding in diagnostic and interventional radiology].

M Fiebich, J Ammon, M Borowski, H de Las Heras Gala, R Loose, H-J Mentzel, B Poppe

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

M FiebichInstitut für Medizinische Physik und Strahlenschutz, Technische Hochschule Mittelhessen, Wiesenstr. 14, 35390, Gießen, Deutschland. martin.fiebich@lse.thm.de.
J AmmonInstitut für Medizinische Physik, Klinikum Nürnberg, Paracelsus Medizinische Privatuniversität, Nürnberg, Deutschland.
M BorowskiInstitut für Röntgendiagnostik und Nuklearmedizin, Klinikum Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Deutschland.
H de Las Heras GalaBundesamt für Strahlenschutz, Oberschleißheim, Deutschland.
R LooseInstitut für Medizinische Physik, Klinikum Nürnberg Nord (i. R.), Nürnberg, Deutschland.
H-J MentzelSektion Kinderradiologie, Institut für Diagnostische und Interventionelle Radiologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Deutschland.
B PoppeUniversitätsklinik für Medizinische Strahlenphysik, Medizinischer Campus Pius-Hospital, Department für Medizinische Physik und Akustik, Carl-von-Ossietzky-Universität Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of patient contact shielding provides an opportunity to reduce patient radiation exposure. Recently, the use has been the subject of controversy. The Radiation Protection Committee has published a recommendation on the use of patient radiation shields by considering the recent findings on dose savings but also the risks of incorrect use. In this article, a specification for the more frequently used types of X‑ray examination is given, which describes whether and which radiation contact shielding should be used. This is accompanied by a rationale for the use or non-use of patient radiation protection agents. Problems and possible errors are explained, as well as how to deal with special situations such as pregnant women and children.

Indexed as

Radiation ExposureRadiation ProtectionChildFemaleHumansPregnancyRadiation DosageRadiographyRadiology, InterventionalComputed tomographyDose reductionProjection radiographyRadiation exposureX‑rays

Identifiers

PMID37171543

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.