| Title |
Radiation-Induced Skin Injuries to Patients: What the Interventional Radiologist Needs to Know
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00270-017-1674-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Werner Jaschke, Matthias Schmuth, Annalisa Trianni, Gabriel Bartal |
| Abstract |
For a long time, radiation-induced skin injuries were only encountered in patients undergoing radiation therapy. In diagnostic radiology, radiation exposures of patients causing skin injuries were extremely rare. The introduction of fast multislice CT scanners and fluoroscopically guided interventions (FGI) changed the situation. Both methods carry the risk of excessive high doses to the skin of patients resulting in skin injuries. In the early nineties, several reports of epilation and skin injuries following CT brain perfusion studies were published. During the same time, several papers reported skin injuries following FGI, especially after percutaneous coronary interventions and neuroembolisations. Thus, CT and FGI are of major concern regarding radiation safety since both methods can apply doses to patients exceeding 5 Gy (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements threshold for substantial radiation dose level). This paper reviews the problem of skin injuries observed after FGI. Also, some practical advices are given how to effectively avoid skin injuries. In addition, guidelines are discussed how to deal with patients who were exposed to a potentially dangerous radiation skin dose during medically justified interventional procedures. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 111 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 14 | 13% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 14% |
| Unknown | 37 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 25% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 12 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 8% |
| Engineering | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Unknown | 44 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 27 February 2022.
All research outputs
#2,320,775
of 23,213,531 outputs
Outputs from CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
#82
of 2,413 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,429
of 311,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology
#5
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,213,531 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,413 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
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 311,308 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.