ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2026
Impact of Ceiling Suspended Shield Size on Primary Operator Radiation Dose During Coronary Angiography and Intervention.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2026. 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.
- Impact of Ceiling Suspended Shield Size on Primary Operator Radiation Dose During Coronary Angiography and Intervention.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRadiation protection for operators performing coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is important, with the occupational risks being increasingly recognised. The ceiling-suspended lead acrylic shield is the most commonly used piece of radiation shielding equipment, with different models available. This study sought to measure the impact of shield size on operator dose (OD) in the clinical environment, with two readily available models.
methodsTwo identical cardiac catheterisation laboratories (cath labs) were used in this single centre study. Fluoroscopy time (FT) and kerma area product (KAP) measured procedural radiation exposure. Identical lower body shields were used in both rooms. The ceiling-suspended lead acrylic shield was different in each room, with one being 35% larger and also having lead rubber pleats along the lower edge. OD was measured with a real-time dosimeter (Raysafe i3) at the end of each procedure.
resultsFT and KAP were not significantly different between the two cath labs for 1021 CA and 441 PCI procedures respectively. OD for CA procedures was 9 μSv in cath lab 1 (large shield) and 12 μSv in cath lab 2 (standard shield) (p < 0.001). For PCI procedures, the operator dose was 21 μSv in cath lab 1 (large shield) and 29 μSv in cath lab 2 (standard shield) (p < 0.001).
conclusionIn this study, with identical cath labs, and similar procedural dose and fluoroscopy times, OD was up to 43% lower with a larger lead acrylic shield when compared to a standard lead acrylic shield.
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.