ArticleCureus2024
Radiation Protection in the Orthopedics Department: Insights From a Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Review
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
objectiveThis study assesses radiation protection practices and knowledge among orthopedic surgeons in Saudi Arabia.
methodsThis cross-sectional study surveyed orthopedic surgeons in Saudi Arabia using an online standardized and pre-tested questionnaire. The data were analyzed using statistical software.
resultsThe cross-sectional study was conducted among 102 participants. This survey revealed significant gaps in understanding safety protocols for radiation, as formal training in radiation protection was provided to only 3.9% of surgeons, whereas 7.8% had a basic awareness of the ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) principle. Even though 67.6% of respondents reported the regular use of lead aprons, other radiation protective equipment, such as leaded eyeglasses and thyroid shields, was less frequently or rarely used; moreover, 80.4% of participants did not use dosimeters to monitor their radiation dose.
conclusionThe findings of the study comply with the global trends that may be traced in the investigations of other studies where inconsistent use of protective equipment and a lack of corresponding knowledge were prevalent. The current investigation accentuates the importance of mandatory radiation safety training and regular monitoring of the enforcement of protective equipment use; moreover, prioritizing these measures can protect surgeons from the enduring risks of radiation exposure, such as cataracts, cancer, and other radiation-induced disorders.
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.