Research summary, systematic review or meta-analysis, 2026

Prevalence of the use of protective equipment for ionizing radiation from fluoroscopy: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Videira S, Rodrigues MA, Santos J, Guedes J, Martins J, V da Silva M. Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences. 2026

Read the original paper

In plain language

Across 64 studies of 15,014 mostly physician fluoroscopy users, 87% always used lead aprons, but only 46% always used thyroid shields and 17% lead goggles, with use varying by country development level.

At a glance

Type of study
Systematic review or meta-analysis, Meta-analysis
Who was studied
Orthopedic surgeons, Other physicians, Mixed lab staff
Size
n = 64 studies
Summary based on
the abstract

What it found

  • Pooled prevalence of consistent ('always') lead apron use was high.

    Key figures: 87% (95% confidence interval (CI):78-94; n = 6,383)

  • Fewer than half of workers consistently used thyroid shields.

    Key figures: 46% (95% CI: 26-66, n = 5,236)

  • Consistent use of lead goggles was low.

    Key figures: 17% (95% CI:8-29; n = 3,704)

  • Apron use was higher in countries with a very high Human Development Index, while thyroid shield and goggle use was reported as lower.

    Key figures: p = 0.03 (aprons); p < 0.01 (thyroid shields and goggles)

  • Included participants were mostly physicians, with orthopedics/traumatology the most represented specialty.

    Key figures: 64 studies; 15,014 participants; 94% physicians; 45% orthopedics/traumatology

Limits to keep in mind

Pooled prevalence estimates come from primary studies with moderate risk of bias and wide confidence intervals, and participants were overwhelmingly physicians, especially orthopedics/traumatology, limiting generalizability to nurses, technologists and other lab staff.

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.