ArticleThe British journal of radiology2025
A survey of UK standards of radiation protection amongst orthopaedic surgeons.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 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.
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
objectiveTo evaluate training in radiation protection, awareness of local policies, and current practices regarding safe working with ionizing radiation among UK orthopaedic surgeons.
methodsA 37-question online survey was distributed to UK orthopaedic resident doctors and consultants through social media platforms. The survey assessed demographics, use of radiation-guided procedures, training, knowledge of safety policies, access to and use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and monitoring of radiation exposure. Data were analysed using Stata software and Pearson's Chi-squared test.
resultsTwenty-eight consultants and 79 resident doctors responded, comprising 0.4% and 5.3% of the orthopaedic workforce, respectively. Consultants were more likely to have completed formal radiation safety training (93% vs 38%; P < .001) and were more aware of local safety policies (56% vs 9%; P < .001). Access to dosimeters was limited (32% of consultants vs 6% of resident doctors; P < .005), with few receiving exposure feedback (20% of consultants vs 3% of resident doctors; P < .005). Awareness and application of the "as low as reasonably achievable" principles were poor, with 33% of resident doctors unfamiliar compared to 4% of consultants (P < .005). PPE use was inconsistent; 64% of consultants and 41% of resident doctors never used radiation protection glasses, and only 12% of consultants and 1.4% of resident doctors had custom-fitted lead aprons (P < .05).
conclusionThis study underscores deficiencies in radiation protection for UK orthopaedic surgeons, particularly resident doctors, highlighting the urgent need for mandatory radiation safety training, improved PPE provision, and monitoring of radiation exposure with regular exposure feedback. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This survey identifies deficiencies in radiation safety training and PPE access among UK orthopaedic surgeons, particularly resident doctors. It highlights the lack of substantial improvements since previous studies, underlining the need for high level systemic changes. The survey advocates for mandatory radiation safety training, consistent monitoring of radiation exposure, and the desire for the establishment of a national registry to record an individual's annual exposure to radiation.
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.