ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2025
Pilot Study on Risk Perception in Practices with Medical Cyclotrons in Radiopharmaceutical Centers in Latin American Countries: Diagnosis and Corrective Measures.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Practices with medical cyclotrons to produce PET radiopharmaceuticals in Latin America represent a technological advance for the diagnosis and treatment of diseases such as cancer, but they involve occupational risks due to exposure to ionizing radiation. This study evaluates the perception of risk in 46 radiopharmacy service workers in 13 countries in the region (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Portugal, Dominican Republic and Venezuela), analyzing differences by gender and age. The questionnaire, validated by reliability analysis (Cronbach's coefficient α > 0.7), was statistically analyzed with means, standard deviations (SD) and standard errors (SE), 95% confidence intervals (Student's t-distribution), and coefficients of variation (CV) to assess the dispersion of each variable. The results reveal general underestimation in dimensions such as reversibility of consequences (SD = 0.7142, SE = 0.1053) and familiarity (SD = 0.8410, SE = 0.124), promoting complacency, while immediacy of consequences shows overestimation (SD = 0.9760, SE = 0.1439), amplifying anxiety. By gender, women tend to overestimate (e.g., immediacy = 2.5) and men underestimate (e.g., confidence = 1.78); by age, young people (26-45 years old) overestimate more than older people (≥46 years old). These deviations, with high QoL indicating heterogeneity, suggest interventions such as continuous training, real-time monitoring, and communication campaigns to balance perception. Practical recommendations include job rotations to reduce underestimation due to familiarity and simulations to mitigate emotional overestimation, which are aligned with IAEA regulations (GSR Part 3, SSG-46) to promote a sustainable safety culture.
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.