ArticleThe British journal of radiology2023
Better safe than so ray: national survey of radiation protection amongst interventional radiology trainees in the United Kingdom.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of X-ray Personal protective equipment for Orthopaedic Surgeons in theatrE (EXPOSEd) study : a national survey of Trauma & Orthopaedic surgeons.Bone & joint open · 2025Article
- Radiation protection: safety measures and knowledge among interventional radiologists- a UK-based analysis of current practices and recommendations for improvement.CVIR endovascular · 2025Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of radiology practitioners in Saudi Arabia toward the use of gonad shields during fluoroscopy-guided interventional radiography.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo establish the provision and use of radiation personal protective equipment (PPE) and dosimetry amongst UK interventional radiology (IR) trainees and highlight areas of improvement in order to enhance the radiation safety.
methodsA survey questionnaire was designed by members of the British Society of Interventional Radiology (BSIR) trainee committee via survey monkey and distributed to UK IR trainees via the BSIR membership mailing list, local representatives and Twitter. The survey was open from 04/01/2021 to 20/02/2021. Only IR trainees in years ST4 and above were included.
resultsOf the 73 respondents, 62 qualified for analysis. Respondents (81% male) spent a median of 5.5 sessions (half day list) per week in the angiography suite and 58% (n=36) had difficulty finding appropriately sized lead aprons at least once a week. Overall 53% (n=33) had concerns about their radiation PPE. Furthermore 56% of trainees (n=35) experienced back pain among other symptoms attributed to wearing the lead aprons available to them. 77% (n=48) regularly wore lead glasses. For trainees requiring prescription glasses (n=22) overfit goggles were provided however 17 (77%) of these trainees felt the goggles compromised their ability to perform the procedure. Eye and finger dosimeters were used by 50% and 52% of respondents respectively. Compliance with body dosimetry was 99%.
conclusionProvision of radiation PPE and dose monitoring for IR trainees is suboptimal, particularly access to adequate eye protection or suitably fitting leads. Based on the findings of this survey, recommendations have been made to promote the safety and radiation awareness of IR trainees. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Radiation protection practices for IR trainees nationally are poor. Provision of suitable eye protection and well fitting lead body protection is low.
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.