In plain language
In US dosimetry records for fluoroscopy-guided intervention staff, median annual lens dose was about 7 mSv. It did not change from 2009 to 2015 and was within US limits. Most badge entries were uninformative, and missing, reversed or misplaced badges hampered monitoring.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Dosimetry measurement study
- Who was studied
- Mixed lab staff
- Size
- n = 603,206 informative badge dose entries
- Where
- United States
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Most badge entries were uninformative. Only about a fifth of two-badge entries and a third of one-badge entries were judged informative after exclusions.
Key figures: 22.2% (153 033 of 687 912) two-badge; 32.9% (450 173 of 1 366 736) one-badge
Median annual lens dose equivalents were similar for one-badge and two-badge wearers, at around 7 mSv.
Key figures: median 6.9 mSv (n = 6218) vs 7.1 mSv (IQR 4.6-11.2 mSv; n = 1449); P = .18
Lens dose equivalent did not change from 2009 to 2015 under either monitoring protocol.
Key figures: P = .96 (one badge); P = .23 (two badges)
Many two-badge entries were incomplete or showed incorrect badge wear.
Key figures: 123 595 incomplete; 76 059 incorrect wear
Doses were within US regulatory limits. Non-return, reversal and improper placement of badges hinder accurate monitoring.
Limits to keep in mind
This is a retrospective analysis of badge records from a single dosimetry provider, in which staff were only presumed to perform fluoroscopically guided interventional (FGI) work and most entries were excluded as uninformative. Badge readings estimate dose and are not health outcomes.
Related research summaries
- The occupational effects of interventional cardiology: results from the WIN for Safety survey (2012, Cross-sectional survey)
- Accidents of occupational exposure to ionizing radiation in radiology departments: risks, prevention, and management (2026, Narrative review)
- Occupational Protection in Interventional Radiology. A Joint Guideline of the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe and the Society of Interventional Radiology (2026, Guideline or consensus statement)
- SCAI/ASE/HRS/SIR/SVS Expert Consensus Statement on Enhanced Radiation Protection: Time for Mandatory and Urgent Action (2026, Guideline or consensus statement)
- Radiation in the Orthopedic Operating Room: What We Know, What We Do, and What Needs Attention (2025, Narrative review)
How this summary was made
ORSIF prepared this summary with AI assistance from the abstract of the paper. A program then checked that the passage supporting each finding appears word for word in that source. A person has not yet reviewed each summary, so read the original before relying on a number. ORSIF summarizes research and does not endorse any product or company. Report a problem with this summary.
Prepared November 3, 2026.