Short-Term vs. Long-Term: A Critical Review of Indoor Radon Measurement Techniques.

Khathutshelo Vincent Mphaga, Thokozani Patrick Mbonane, Wells Utembe, Phoka Caiphus Rathebe

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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.

Post-seismic indoor radon exposure in ground-floor gyms: amplified health risk during physical exercise.Frontiers in public health · 2026
Article

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

4 authors.

Khathutshelo Vincent MphagaDepartment of Environmental Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Doornfontein Campus, University of Johannesburg, P.O. Box 524, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa.

Thokozani Patrick MbonaneDepartment of Environmental Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Doornfontein Campus, University of Johannesburg, P.O. Box 524, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-5802-4265

Wells UtembeDepartment of Environmental Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Doornfontein Campus, University of Johannesburg, P.O. Box 524, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-6547-7692

Phoka Caiphus RathebeDepartment of Environmental Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Doornfontein Campus, University of Johannesburg, P.O. Box 524, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-9095-354X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radon is a known carcinogen, and the accurate assessment of indoor levels is essential for effective mitigation strategies. While long-term testing provides the most reliable data, short-term testing (STT) offers a quicker and more cost-effective alternative. This review evaluated the accuracy of STT in predicting annual radon averages and compared testing strategies in Europe (where long-term measurements are common) and the United States (where STT is prevalent). Twenty (20) studies were systematically identified through searches in scientific databases and the grey literature, focusing on STT accuracy and radon management. This review revealed several factors that influence the accuracy of STT. Most studies recommended a minimum four-day test for initial screening, but accuracy varied with radon levels. For low levels (<75 Bq/m

Indexed as

Europeindoor radonlong-term radon testingshort-term radon testing (STT)United States (US)

Identifiers

PMID39065973

DOI10.3390/s24144575

PMCPMC11280955

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.