ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2024
Assessment of the Occupational Radiation Exposure of Anesthesia Staff in Interventional Cardiology.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This research seeks to evaluate the occupational radiation dose, quantified as the whole-body Annual Mean Effective Dose (AMED), received by anesthesia personnel in interventional cardiology. Methods: Thermoluminescent dosimetry data was collected over five years (2019-2023) for a total of 175 anesthesia staff. Technologists comprised approximately 72.4% of the participants (55% male and 45% female), while consultants accounted for 27.6% (70% male and 30% female). Statistical tests, including Independent Samples Results: The study's findings on AMED across all staff from 2019 to 2023 showed marked variability in AMED. There was a significant rise in AMED from 0.72 mSv in 2019 to 0.92 mSv in 2020, then a decline to 0.82 mSv in 2021, with further decreases to 0.67 mSv in 2022 and finally to 0.65 mSv in 2023 (p < 0.001). The average AMED over the five-year span (2019-2023) was 0.76 ± 0.4 mSv. In terms of gender, the overall AMED for males was 0.73 ± 0.36 mSv and for females 0.79 ± 0.45 mSv, showing no significant statistical difference (p = 0.272). Significant differences in exposure were observed between the technologists who experienced a higher overall AMED (0.8 ± 0.43 mSv) compared to consultants (0.63 ± 0.29 mSv, p = 0.008). Discussion: Despite these variations, AMED values remained lower than the annual occupational dose limit of 20 mSv, indicating generally low radiation exposure for anesthesia staff. This study emphasizes the importance of ongoing monitoring and enhanced protective measures to safeguard the health of medical professionals working with radiation.
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.