ArticleNeuroradiology2025
Occupational radiation exposure of radiologic technologists in Interventional neuroradiology.
Article in Neuroradiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWith the rising number of angiographic interventional procedures, occupational radiation exposure is becoming increasingly relevant. As even low doses may contribute to stochastic health effects, enhanced radiological protection measures are warranted. This study aimed to systematically quantify the radiation exposure of radiologic technologists under routine clinical conditions and in an experimental setting.
methodsRadiation dose exposure was monitored over one month using three official dosimeters placed at defined locations within the angiography suite, using the floor-mounted C-arm as a reference point. Dose values were extrapolated to estimate annual exposure. Additionally, experimental dose rate measurements were performed at eight locations and three height levels (foot, torso, eye) under standardized conditions using both standard and low-dose DSA protocols.
resultsOfficial dosimeter readings averaged less than 2% of the reference value at the C-arm. The extrapolated annual occupational radiation exposure was low (0.44 mSv), with the highest value of 1.03 mSv near the door to the supply room. Experimental measurements revealed average radiation dose rates of 885 µSv/h; with a wide range from: 12 to 6109 µSv/h. Dose rates were more strongly influenced by the shielding effect of stationary protective equipment (reduction factor of 31) than by spatial distance. The highest radiation exposure occurred at foot level. Low-dose protocols reduced ambient radiation by an average of 23%.
conclusionOccupational exposure remained well below legal thresholds but varied spatially. Stationary shielding and low-dose protocols proved most effective for dose reduction.
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.