Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 330

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?

Ciraj‐Bjelac, Olivera, Rehani, Madan M., Sim, Kui Hian, Liew, Houng Bang, Vano, Eliseo, Kleiman, Norman J.·2010·Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ccd.22670

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 330

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.