ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2026
Diagnostic Radiographers' Application of the Radiation Protection Principles of Justification, Optimisation and Dose Limits in Mpumalanga Province, South Africa.
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. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe effective application of radiation protection principles is essential for minimising unnecessary radiation exposure and reducing associated risks to patients, personnel, and the public. This study investigated the application of radiation protection principles by diagnostic radiographers in Mpumalanga province, South Africa.
methodsThe quantitative cross-sectional study employed stratified random sampling and an online questionnaire to collect data from diagnostic radiographers working in Mpumalanga hospitals. The data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics.
resultsThe survey achieved a response rate of 85.6% (n = 125, N = 146). Most participants (38.4%, n = 48) had 0-5 years of work experience. Referral forms often lacked sufficient clinical history (64.8%, n = 81), with diagnostic radiographers frequently supplementing by assessing the body region of concern (49.2%, n = 60). Lack of communication between radiologists and diagnostic radiographers was noted when referrals were incomplete (31.3%, n = 36) or when requested examinations did not correspond with the clinical history (32.8%, n = 38). Most participants (66.4%, n = 81) felt undervalued due to hierarchical structures. Most X-ray rooms had functional warning lights (80%, n = 84). Full lead shields (98.1%, n = 102) were widely accessible, and lead goggles (33.7%, n = 34) were the least accessible. Although most participants were issued with personal radiation monitoring devices (97.1%, n = 99), only 53.5% (n = 53) reported consistent use, and 33.3% (n = 32) received radiation dose readings.
conclusionThe application of radiation protection principles was inconsistent. Justification was achieved through referral assessment but was compromised by systemic barriers. Optimisation demonstrated suitable room designs but was limited by resource accessibility. Dose limitation was hindered by device usage and feedback despite high issuance.
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.