ArticleBone & joint open2025
Evaluation of X-ray Personal protective equipment for Orthopaedic Surgeons in theatrE (EXPOSEd) study : a national survey of Trauma & Orthopaedic surgeons.
Article in Bone & joint open, 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.
- Leading by Example: Strategies that Have Helped Inclusivity in the UK-A Personal Memoir.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
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
Aims: To evaluate the accessibility and utility of current radiation personal protective equipment (PPE) provision and understand the experiences and radiation protection practices offered to all levels of Trauma & Orthopaedic (T&O) surgeons in the UK. Methods: An incentivized electronic survey was sent to all UK T&O surgeons during a six-week period in 2024. Responses to 27 multiple-choice questions were collected and free-text responses analyzed by theme. Results: A total of 677 responses from 196 UK NHS hospitals were received: 228 recepients (33%) were female, 455 (67%) were resident doctors, and 222 (33%) were consultants, representing a response rate of 38% (341/897) for trainees and 11% (222/2114) for consultants. Overall, 171 (25%) agreed they could find appropriate lead gown PPE; 80 (12%) had been given dosimeters, although few had received feedback; 173 (26%) received mandatory training, but many more (328, 48%) had sought training individually. When undertaken, it was felt useful. Symptoms attributed to ill-fitting PPE were common and more likely to be reported by females (odds ratio 2.5). In total, 372 (55%) did not feel protected by their current PPE, and 569 (84%) were concerned about the effects of ionizing radiation (IR) on their health. Thematic analysis confirmed concerns relating to PPE availability, education, and inconsistent advice and guidance across hospitals. Health concerns and poor morale were also highlighted. Conclusion: Employers must address the lack of compliance with the UK legislation, IR Regulations 2017 (IRR17), in relation to access to PPE, training, and monitoring. There is a need for standardized national guidelines and training.
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.