ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2026
Tungsten-bismuth shielding sheets for radiation safety in fluoroscopy-guided bronchoscopy: a phantom study.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Radiation safety is a critical concern in fluoroscopy-guided bronchoscopy. While standard personal protective equipment (PPE) such as lead aprons, thyroid collars, and eyewear protects vulnerable regions, other areas remain exposed. Supplemental shielding (e.g., glass screens, table skirts) can improve safety, but ceiling-mounted lead-acrylic barriers, though effective, are limited by cost and space. This study evaluated tungsten-bismuth (W-Bi) shielding sheets as a low-cost, deployable alternative. Methods: Using a C-arm fluoroscope (65 kVp, 4.2 mA) on an anthropomorphic phantom, we compared the attenuation performance, weight, and cost of PPE and structural shielding devices. Scatter radiation was measured at four vertical heights (50-170 cm) to simulate body-level exposures, with additional hand-level assessments for the bronchoscopist and assistant. Over-couch protection was tested across five conditions: no shielding, lead-acrylic barrier (0.50 mmPb), and single to triple layers of W-Bi sheets (0.15 mmPb each). Results: Lead-acrylic and ≥ double-layer W-Bi achieved >96% dose reduction across most body regions, excluding the thigh. Triple-layer W-Bi sheets provided up to 98.8% attenuation at the upper thorax and >99% reduction at hand level, surpassing lead-acrylic in some measurements. The assistant's hand received the highest unshielded dose (2,439.47±11.19 µGy/h), over threefold greater than the bronchoscopist's. Combined PPE and structural shielding yielded markedly enhanced protection, particularly in regions not covered by PPE. Conclusions: Triple-layer W-Bi shielding offers radiation protection comparable to or exceeding lead-acrylic barriers. Its affordability and ease of deployment support its use as a practical strategy for improving radiation safety in bronchoscopy, especially in resource-limited settings.
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.