ArticleBMC research notes2025
The medical radiation technologist model: a streamlined process for procedural sedations.
Article in BMC research notes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveProcedural sedations are a growing and routine form of sedation. Some of them may not require the presence of a nurse. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of the Medical Radiation Technologists (MRT) model, which forgo the presence of a Registered Nurse (RN), for procedural sedations in Computed Tomography biopsies. The setting was a teaching hospital that moved from an RN to an MRT model. We compared staff utilization, turnaround times and incident reports between pre and post implementation, over 19 months overall.
resultsNo adverse events were observed under either model. Wait times were reduced by 25% from 131 to 98 min. Turnaround times were reduced by 2 min from 52 to 50 min. The joint cost of RN/MRIT was reduced by 37% per procedure, from $141 to $88.
conclusionThese results suggest that the MRT model is more cost-effective without compromising quality of care. The MRT model is promising and should be extended to more facilities and other routine procedural sedations to save time and resources.
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.