↓ Skip to main content

Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

Overview of attention for book
Attention for Chapter 2: Radiation exposure and adverse health effects of interventional cardiology staff.
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Chapter title
Radiation exposure and adverse health effects of interventional cardiology staff.
Chapter number 2
Book title
Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
Published in
Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, September 2012
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-4717-7_2
Pubmed ID
Book ISBNs
978-1-4614-4716-0, 978-1-4614-4717-7
Authors

Kesavachandran CN, Haamann F, Nienhaus A, Chandrasekharan Nair Kesavachandran, Frank Haamann, Albert Nienhaus, Kesavachandran, Chandrasekharan Nair, Haamann, Frank, Nienhaus, Albert

Abstract

To the best of our knowledge, this chapter constitutes the first systematic review of radiation exposure to eyes, thyroid, and hands for Interventional Cardiology (IC) staff. We have concluded from our review that these anatomical locations are likely to be exposed to radiation as a result of the limited use of personal protective equipment (PPE) among IC staff as shown in Fig. 8. Our review also reveals that, with the exception of three eye exposure cases, the annual radiation dose to eyes, thyroid, and hands among IC staff was within recommended levels and limits. The As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) limit was not achieved in three cases for fingers/hands and four cases for eyes. However, an increased incidence of cataracts were reported for IC staff, and this gives rise to the concern that low-dose or unnoticed exposures may increase the risk of developing cataracts among cardiology staff. Clearly, the formation of cataracts among IC staff may be an issue and should be studied in more depth. Our review also disclosed that the two groups who receive excessive radiation doses (i.e., exceed the recommended limit) are physicians-in-training and junior staff physicians who work in cardiac catheterization laboratories. In particular, more attention should be given to assessing the effects of radiation exposure among IC staff who work in the Asia Pacific countries, because our review indicates that the number of IC procedures performed by IC staff in these countries is higher than for other continents. There is a huge demand for procedures conducted by IC staff in the Asia-Pacific area, for both treating patients and consulting with specialists. Our review also disclosed that recommended limits for per-procedure radiation doses are needed for IC staff. We recommend that such limits be established by the appropriate national and international agencies that are responsible for occupational radiation exposure. Although our review indicates that the current precautions against LDR exposure for IC staff are adequate in most cases, we are concerned about the relatively high incidence of cataracts reported to exist among IC staff. Therefore, we believe that there is a need for a strict implementation of radiation safety practices in cardiology laboratories and associated workplaces that utilize radiation. The action that is most important for protecting staff in the workplace against radiation exposure is the regular use of personal protective equipment or shielding. Working at a safe distance from instruments and assuring that such instruments are in the proper position are other techniques that can reduce the radiation dose received by IC staff.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Postgraduate 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Professor 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 8 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Unspecified 1 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 8 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 March 2014.
All research outputs
#16,287,458
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#124
of 186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,366
of 173,193 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 186 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 173,193 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them