ArticleAnnals of nuclear medicine2023
Effectiveness of shielding materials against
Article in Annals of nuclear medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Energy-specific attenuation and half-value layers of BaSOAnnals of nuclear medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical evaluation of fluorine-urethane resin-coated films for preventing and managingAnnals of nuclear 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
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this study is to determine the dose reduction of different shielding materials at various distances from a
methodsTwo protective aprons with lead equivalent thicknesses of 0.25 mm and 0.35 mm and tungsten-containing rubber (TCR) were used as shielding materials. A vial containing
resultsAt distances of 0, 10, 50, 100, and 200 cm, the dose reduction for the lead equivalent thickness of 0.25 mm were 32.7%, 54.5%, 93.1%, 97.9%, and 99.6%, respectively; and for the lead equivalent thickness of 0.35 mm were 53.4%, 70.6%, 95.6%, 98.9%, and 99.6%, respectively. Without any shielding, the dose rate decreased by 34.4% at 10 cm and by 88.8% at 50 cm from the radiation source. The dose reduction for the TCR thickness of 3.5 mm was 89.8% at 0 cm and 93.3% at 10 cm. The TCR thickness of 0.4 mm provided a dose reduction comparable to or greater than that of the 0.25 mm lead equivalent, whereas the TCR thickness of 1.0 mm or greater provided a dose reduction comparable to that of the 0.35 mm lead equivalent.
conclusionsAchieving a reduction of 95% or more requires the 0.25 mm lead equivalent for a distance of 100 cm, the 0.35 mm lead equivalent for 50 cm, the TCR thickness of 0.3 mm for 100 cm, or the TCR thickness of 0.9 mm for 50 cm. Without wearing a protective apron, a reduction of approximately 95% is observed at distances greater than 100 cm. These findings would be useful for medical staff engaging in related activities.
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.