The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Occupational radiation doses in interventional cardiology: a 15-year follow-up
Abstract
This report describes occupational radiation doses of interventional cardiologists over 15 years and assesses action undertaken to optimize radiation protection. Personal dosimetry records of nine staff cardiologists and eight interventional cardiology fellows were recorded using personal dosemeters worn over and under their lead aprons. The hospital in which this study was conducted currently performs 5000 cardiology procedures per year. The hospital has improved its facilities since 1989, when it had two old-fashioned theatres, to include four rooms with more advanced and safer equipment. Intensive radiation protection training was also implemented since 1989. Initially, some individual dose values in the range of 100-300 mSv month(-1), which risked exceeding some regulatory dose limits, were measured over the lead apron. Several doses in the range of 5-11 mSv month(-1) were recorded under the apron (mean = 10.2 mSv year(-1)). During the last 5 years of the study, after the implementation of the radiation protection actions and a programme of patient-dose optimization, the mean dose under the apron was reduced to 1.2 mSv year(-1). Current mean occupational doses recorded under the lead apron are 14% of those recorded during 1989-1992 and those recorded over the apron are 14-fold less than those recorded during 1989-1992. The regulatory dose limits and the threshold for lens injuries might have been exceeded if radiation protection facilities had not been used systematically. The most effective actions involved in reducing the radiation risk were training in radiation protection, a programme of patient-dose reduction and the systematic use of radiation protection facilities, specifically ceiling-suspended protective screens.
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
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
Heidbuchel, 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
Radiation 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
- Vaño, E., Gonzalez, L., Fernandez, J. M., Alfonso, F., & Macaya, C.
- Venue
- The British Journal of Radiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2006-05
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 941
- Pages
- 383-388
- ISSN
- 0007-1285 (ISSN-L)
- 1748-880X
- OpenAlex
- W2125868025
- Cited by
- 214
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.31
- 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: Occupational radiation doses in interventional cardiology: a 15-year follow-up. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1259/bjr/26829723
- The paper
- Vaño, E., Gonzalez, L., Fernandez, J. M., Alfonso, F., & Macaya, C. (2006). Occupational radiation doses in interventional cardiology: a 15-year follow-up. The British Journal of Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/26829723
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.