The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Risk for radiation‐induced cataract for staff in interventional cardiology: Is there reason for concern?
Abstract
Objectives: To examine the prevalence of radiation‐associated lens opacities among interventional cardiologists and nurses and correlate with occupational radiation exposure. Background: Interventional cardiology personnel are exposed to relatively high levels of X‐rays and based on recent findings of radiation‐associated lens opacities in other cohorts, they may be at risk for cataract without use of ocular radiation protection. Methods: Eyes of interventional cardiologists, nurses, and age‐ and sex‐matched unexposed controls were screened by dilated slit lamp examination and posterior lens changes graded using a modified Merriam‐Focht technique. Individual cumulative lens X‐ray exposure was calculated from responses to a questionnaire and personal interview. Results: The prevalence of radiation‐associated posterior lens opacities was 52% (29/56, 95% CI: 35–73) for interventional cardiologists, 45% (5/11, 95% CI: 15–100) for nurses, and 9% (2/22, 95% CI: 1–33) for controls. Relative risks of lens opacity was 5.7 (95% CI: 1.5–22) for interventional cardiologists and 5.0 (95% CI: 1.2–21) for nurses. Estimated cumulative ocular doses ranged from 0.01 to 43 Gy with mean and median values of 3.4 and 1.0 Gy, respectively. A strong dose–response relationship was found between occupational exposure and the prevalence of radiation‐associated posterior lens changes. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate a dose dependent increased risk of posterior lens opacities for interventional cardiologists and nurses when radiation protection tools are not used. While study of a larger cohort is needed to confirm these findings, the results suggest ocular radio‐protection should be utilized. © 2010 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Space Radiation and Cataracts in Astronauts
Cucinotta, F. A., Manuel, F. K., Jones, J., Iszard, G., Murrey, J., Djojonegro, B., & Wear, M. (2001) · Radiation Research · doi:10.1667/0033-7587(2001)156[0460:sracia]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 391
Cited by
Stewart, F. A., Akleyev, A. V., Hauer-Jensen, M., Hendry, J. H., Kleiman, N. J., MacVittie, T. J., Aleman, B. M., Edgar, A. B., Mabuchi, K., Muirhead, C. R., et al. (2012) · Annals of the ICRP · doi:10.1016/j.icrp.2012.02.001 · Cited by 1,604
Self-citationHeidbuchel, H., Wittkampf, F. H. M., Vano, E., Ernst, S., Schilling, R., Picano, E., Mont, L., ESC Scientific Document Group, Jais, P., de Bono, J., et al. (2014) · EP Europace · doi:10.1093/europace/eut409 · Cited by 311
Self-citationRadiation safety program for the cardiac catheterization laboratory
E. Chambers, C., A. Fetterly, K., Holzer, R., Paul Lin, P., C. Blankenship, J., Balter, S., & K. Laskey, W. (2011) · Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions · doi:10.1002/ccd.22867 · Cited by 301
Metadata
- Authors
- Ciraj‐Bjelac, O., Rehani, M. M., Sim, K. H., Liew, H. B., Vano, E., & Kleiman, N. J.
- Venue
- Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-11-15
- Volume
- 76
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 826-834
- ISSN
- 1522-1946 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-726X
- OpenAlex
- W2114719365
- Cited by
- 330
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 16.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Risk for radiation‐induced cataract for staff in interventional cardiology: Is there reason for concern? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ccd.22670
- The paper
- Ciraj‐Bjelac, O., Rehani, M. M., Sim, K. H., Liew, H. B., Vano, E., & Kleiman, N. J. (2010). Risk for radiation‐induced cataract for staff in interventional cardiology: Is there reason for concern? Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.22670
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.