Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38353904›Full record

ArticleCVIR endovascular2024

Evaluation of novel radiation protection devices during radiologically guided interventions.

Maria E V Larsson, Pernilla I Jonasson, Petra S Apell, Peter P Kearney, Charlotta J Lundh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CVIR endovascular, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Maria E V LarssonDepartment of Medical Radiation Sciences, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. maria.ev.larsson@vgregion.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9195-2829
Pernilla I JonassonDepartment of Medical Radiation Sciences, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Petra S ApellTexray AB, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Peter P KearneyDepartment of Cardiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.
Charlotta J LundhDepartment of Medical Radiation Sciences, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Sahlgrenska University Hospital · SEChalmers University of Technology · SECork University Hospital · IEUniversity of Gothenburg · SE

Funding

VINNOVA 2018-04567
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn radiologically guided interventions, medical practitioners are subjected to radiation exposure, which may lead to radiation-induced diseases. In this study, novel radiation shields for the head and neck were evaluated for their potential to reduce radiation exposure.

methodAn anthropomorphic phantom was exposed on its left side to scattered radiation from beneath to simulate the exposure of an operator in a x-ray operating room. Thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) were positioned at different depths in five slices in the phantom, measuring personal dose equivalent. Two different set up situations were evaluated: a head protector designed to reduce radiation in the upper section of the head; and a novel thyroid protector prototype extended in the front and on both sides, designed to reduce radiation in the lower and middle sections of the head. A standard thyroid collar prototype and a ceiling mounted lead glass shield were used as comparisons. Furthermore, the head protector was evaluated in a clinical study in which TLDs were positioned to measure scattered radiation exposure to the heads of operators during endovascular interventions.

resultsThe extended thyroid protector reduced the scattered radiation in the throat, chin, and ear slices. Some shielding effect was seen in the brain and skull slices. The head protector showed a shielding effect in the skull slice up to two cm depth where it covered the phantom head. As expected, the ceiling mounted lead glass shield reduced the scattered radiation in all measuring points.

conclusionsA ceiling mounted lead glass shield is an effective radiation protection for the head, but in clinical practice, optimal positioning of a ceiling mounted lead shield may not always be possible, particularly during complex cases when radiation protection may be most relevant. Added protection using these novel guards may compliment the shielding effect of the ceiling mounted lead shield. The head protector stand-alone did not provide sufficient protection of the head. The extended thyroid protector stand-alone provided sufficient protection in the lower and middle sections of the head and neck.

Indexed as

Ionizing radiationPersonal protection equipmentPPERadiation exposureRadiation protectionScatter radiation

Identifiers

PMID38353904
PMCPMC10866844
OpenAlexW4391815688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.