Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41019901›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2025

Comparative Effectiveness of 2 Next-Generation Scatter Radiation Shielding Systems.

Robert F Riley, Stephen Kidd, Juliette Power, Brian Stegman, Thom G Dahle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Comment on "Comparative Effectiveness of 2 Next-Generation Scatter Radiation Shielding Systems".Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026
    Article
  3. Standards for Comparative Radiation Protection Research.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026
    Article
  4. Is Egg Ready to Leave the Nest and Fly?Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Robert F RileyDivision of Cardiology, Overlake Medical Center, Bellevue, Washington.
Stephen KiddDivision of Cardiology, St. Cloud Hospital, St. Cloud, Minnesota.
Juliette PowerDivision of Cardiology, St. Cloud Hospital, St. Cloud, Minnesota.
Brian StegmanDivision of Cardiology, St. Cloud Hospital, St. Cloud, Minnesota.
Thom G DahleDivision of Cardiology, St. Cloud Hospital, St. Cloud, Minnesota.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Scatter radiation is a health risk for personnel in x-ray-guided procedure rooms. This study compared the effectiveness of scatter radiation reduction from 2 next-generation radiation shielding systems. Methods: Vertical poles with mounted radiation survey meters were positioned at 6 points around a catheterization laboratory imaging table where procedural staff typically stand. Meters were mounted on vertical tracks where the sensor could be raised on the track with stops every 20 cm (up to 200 cm). Fluoroscopy (15 frames per second) was then performed on an anthropomorphic phantom with a cardiac silhouette in PA and 4 quadrant angulations using a Philips Allura C-arm with a 9-inch detector and ClarityIQ dose reduction software (both Philips). Scatter radiation measurements were reported in μSv/h under 3 radiation shielding conditions: no shielding, using the Rampart IC shielding system, and using the EggNest Complete shielding system (Egg Medical Inc). Results: Scatter radiation was not evenly distributed around the table, with higher doses noted at the head of the bed compared to the feet and on the left side of the table compared to the right. Positions correlating with the primary operator and assistant had similarly significant average reductions in scatter radiation for both novel protection systems (EggNest Complete 3 ± 7 μSv/h vs Rampart IC 10 ± 40 μSv/h; Conclusions: Compared to no shielding, both the EggNest Complete and the Rampart IC systems significantly lowered radiation measurements for the operator and assistant positions. However, the EggNest Complete system provided additional significant protection for the head of the bed and the nurse positions, which was not seen with the Rampart IC system.

Indexed as

catheterization laboratoryorthopedic injuryradiation protection

Identifiers

PMID41019901
PMCPMC12462136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.