ArticleClinical neuroradiology2026
Evaluation of a Novel Enhanced Radiation Protection Device in Interventional Neuroradiology: a Phantom Study.
Article in Clinical neuroradiology, 2026. 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.
- Randomized Evaluation of a Textile-Based Enhanced Radiation Protection Device Versus Control Shielding in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
- SCAI/ASE/HRS/SIR/SVS Expert Consensus Statement on Enhanced Radiation Protection: Time for Mandatory and Urgent Action.Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions · 2026Article
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
introductionScatter radiation during interventional neuroradiological (INR) procedures is potentially harmful to the operator and cath-lab staff. Enhanced radiation protection devices (ERPDs) aim to improve safety by minimizing scatter radiation in addition to standard and personal protective equipment (PPE). This study evaluated the efficacy of a novel ERPD in INR.
methodsRadiation exposure of the main operator was estimated by measuring the local dose rate at the examination position. An anthropomorphic patient whole body phantom was used simulating a standard INR procedure. The relative dose reductions were determined for the following settings: a) MasterPeace (Texray AB, Sweden) combined with ceiling-suspended lead screen (Mavig, Germany) compared to no shielding. b) MasterPeace combined with ceiling-suspended lead screen, compared to standard radiation protection consisting of a table-side curtain for lower body protection (Kenex, UK) and ceiling-suspended lead screen. Scatter radiation was measured at various operator heights (70, 130 and 160 cm) across seven routine projection angles using a biplane angio-suite (Artis zee, Siemens Healthineers, Germany).
results(a) The mean scatter radiation shielding effect was 98.5% compared to no shielding across all measured heights and angular projections when used in combination with a ceiling-suspended lead screen. (b) The mean scatter radiation shielding effect was 79.7% compared to standard radiation protection for all measured heights and angular projections. The shielding efficacy ranged from 93.1% for the PA projection to 31.8% for LAO30/CAU30; and from 87.0% at 70 cm to 39.5% at 160 cm.
conclusionsThis phantom study demonstrates that the MasterPeace is highly effective and provides relevant radiation protection in addition to existing standard and personal protection equipment. Clinical evaluation in INR procedures is underway.
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.