ArticleRadiological physics and technology2025
Effectiveness of radiation protection educational material during angiography using visualization of scattered radiation by augmented reality technique.
Article in Radiological physics and technology, 2025. 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.
- The effect of ARCS motivational model-based education on nursing students' communication skills, learning motivation, and self-efficacy: a mixed-methods randomized controlled intervention study.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Utilization of extended-reality technologies in the field of medical radiation.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In medical settings, radiation exposure among radiation workers is a significant concern, and understanding radiation protection is crucial. We developed and evaluated radiation protection educational materials using an augmented reality application for visualizing scatter radiation. The evaluation included a true/false quiz, a questionnaire based on the ARCS (Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction) model, and open-ended responses. The correct response rates for the true/false quiz were 65.5% and 72.4% for two questions regarding the effect of C-arm angle changes on scatter radiation distribution. The correct response rate for all other questions was 100%. Understanding how changes in C-arm angles specifically affect angiographic procedures proved more challenging than other topics. The ARCS model evaluation of learning motivation revealed average scores of 4.15 for Attention, 3.91 for Relevance, 3.93 for Confidence, and 4.28 for Satisfaction in the scale 5.00.These results suggest that the developed materials are effective in enhancing motivation. However, open-ended responses identified areas for improvement in the application's usability, particularly regarding ease of operation. While the materials successfully enhance motivation, further refinements are needed to address the variation in correct response rates across different scenarios and the usability challenges of the application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40108081What 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.