In plain language
A review of published dose studies produced workload-based estimates of likely eye, thyroid and hand doses for interventional radiologists and cardiologists, for use in risk assessment. It also notes that poorly placed dosimeters can give misleading readings.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Narrative review
- Who was studied
- Interventional radiologists, Interventional cardiologists
- Topics
- Dosimetry and monitoringEye lens and cataractsThyroidRoom shielding and protective devicesRegulation and policy
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Dose indicator values based on third-quartile values from published distributions were derived to predict orders of magnitude of operator doses to the eye, thyroid and hands from workload.
These dose estimates could be used in risk assessments when reviewing protection and monitoring requirements.
Suboptimal dosimeter placement can produce misleading dose measurements, so wearing positions should be part of risk assessments.
Published data on the protection offered by shielding and technique factors were also reviewed to inform risk assessments.
Limits to keep in mind
This is a literature review whose derived indicator values depend on heterogeneous published studies. The abstract gives no numbers, study counts or search methods.
Related research summaries
- Radiation exposure in interventional cardiology: a narrative review of health effects and novel approaches to ensure radiation safety (2025, Narrative review)
- Radiation Protection in Interventional Radiology (2022, Narrative review)
- Cancer and non-cancer brain and eye effects of chronic low-dose ionizing radiation exposure (2012, Narrative review)
- SCAI/ASE/HRS/SIR/SVS Expert Consensus Statement on Enhanced Radiation Protection: Time for Mandatory and Urgent Action (2026, Guideline or consensus statement)
- SCAI Multi-Society Position Statement on Occupational Health Hazards (2020, Guideline or consensus statement)
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.