ArticleCureus2024
Optimizing Radiation Protection in PET/CT Examinations: Reducing Occupational Exposure During Patient Positioning.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Occupational radiation exposure of zoo veterinarians during x-ray procedures: a real-time dosimetry study.Journal of occupational health · 2026Observational
- Study on the factors influencing lens opacity among medical radiation workers exposed to long-term low-dose ionizing radiation.Frontiers in medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives The objective of this study was to evaluate the occupational radiation exposure of healthcare workers during positron emission tomography (PET)/CT examinations, focusing on patient positioning and assessing the effectiveness of different radiation protection measures. Methods Thirteen medical workers (physicians, radiological technologists, and nurses) performed PET/CT examinations on 86 patients at a major Japanese hospital from June to August 2019. Occupational doses were measured using a real-time semiconductor dosimeter: RaySafe i2 (Unfors RaySafe, Billdal, Sweden), recording the 1 cm dose equivalent (Hp(10)). Exposure during various tasks was assessed, and radiation protection measures were evaluated, including increasing the number of personnel during patient positioning, using a protective screen (3.0 mm lead equivalent; Kuraray Trading Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan), and implementing remote patient positioning via the PET/CT operator console. Results Patient positioning and discharge (task 4) resulted in the highest occupational exposure, with a median Hp(10) of 0.66 μSv per event (interquartile range (IQR): 0.54-0.71 μSv). Increasing the number of staff during task 4 did not significantly reduce occupational dose (p=0.725). Using a protective screen reduced the median Hp(10) to 0.58 μSv per event (IQR: 0.51-0.80 μSv). Remote positioning via the operator console further reduced it to 0.49 μSv per event (IQR: 0.35-0.62 μSv), achieving a significant dose-reduction (p=0.016). The dose reduction rates were 23.7% for the protective screen and 35.5% for the operator console method. Conclusions Patient positioning is the primary source of occupational radiation exposure during PET/CT examinations. Remote positioning via the operator console significantly reduces occupational exposure and working time compared to other methods, providing an effective and cost-efficient radiation protection strategy that aligns with the As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) principle. Advances in knowledge This study demonstrates that remote patient positioning via the operator console is an effective, easily implementable radiation protection measure that enhances operational efficiency without additional costs, representing a valuable advancement in occupational safety during PET/CT examinations.
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.