ArticlePloS one2024
The radiation protection behavior of medical workers: A scoping review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Proposal for Reducing the Operator Radiation Exposure Dose during 3D DSA Imaging under Carotid Artery Occlusion Tests (Matas and Allcock Test).Journal of neuroendovascular therapy · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRadiation exposure in medical settings stands as the primary source of artificial radiation, compounded by the yearly rise in healthcare worker numbers. Ensuring radiation protection is crucial for safeguarding their occupational health. Nevertheless, existing studies on radiation protection behavior exhibit considerable heterogeneity due to various factors.
objectiveThis scoping review aims to explore the current status of research on radiation protection behavior and identify research gaps, intending to guide future research directions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review will follow the Arksey and O'Malley framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A systematic search will be conducted across English databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Medline, as well as Chinese databases such as CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and China Biomedical Literature Database. Two independent reviewers will screen the studies based on predefined eligibility criteria and extract the data. Any disagreements will be resolved through discussion by a third reviewer. The review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY: A stakeholder consultation will provide an opportunity to validate the findings and address any potential gaps in the article. In this scoping review, all types of studies will be considered. The effectiveness of the methodological quality of the included studies will not be reported, which may lead to some studies of poor quality being included. Only studies published in English or Chinese after 2010 will be considered in this review, potentially leading to the omission of relevant papers.
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.