In plain language
In a 1992 survey of radiologists, back pain was reported by 52% of heavier lead apron users versus 46% of lighter users, a difference that was not statistically significant. Low response rate and self-report limit conclusions.
At a glance
- Type of study
- Original research, Cross-sectional survey
- Who was studied
- Interventional radiologists, Other physicians
- Size
- n = 179 radiologists
- Summary based on
- the abstract
What it found
Back pain was slightly more common among radiologists wearing lead aprons 10 or more hours per week than among those wearing them less, but the difference was not statistically significant.
Key figures: 52% (>=10 hr/week) vs 46% (<10 hr/week); not statistically significant
The authors concluded the study did not establish lead apron wear as a significant risk factor for back pain.
Response rate was low; objective analysis was restricted to radiologists without back pain before apron use.
Key figures: 236 responses of 688 (34%); 179 analysed
Limits to keep in mind
Self-reported questionnaire with a 34% response rate, risking response bias, and a modest sample with no objective measure of back pathology. Cross-sectional design cannot establish cause, and older apron technology may limit applicability today.
Related research summaries
- SCAI Multi-Society Position Statement on Occupational Health Hazards (2020, Guideline or consensus statement)
- Occupational Radiological Protection in Interventional Procedures, ICRP PUBLICATION 139 (2018, Guideline or consensus statement)
- Estimating effective dose using non-lead protective aprons and a single dosimeter method (2026, Modeling or economic study)
- Increasing Awareness and Reducing Occupational Hazards in the Cardiac Catheterization and Electrophysiology Laboratories: Working to Eliminate Lead and Complications of Radiation in Cardiovascular Team Study (2026, Cross-sectional survey)
- Occupational Pelvic and Chest-Level Radiation Exposure Among Interventional Echocardiographers During Percutaneous Structural Heart Interventions (2026, Dosimetry measurement study)
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.