↓ Skip to main content

A Review of Radiation Protection Solutions for the Staff in the Cardiac Catheterisation Laboratory

Overview of attention for article published in Heart, Lung & Circulation, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#35 of 729)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Review of Radiation Protection Solutions for the Staff in the Cardiac Catheterisation Laboratory
Published in
Heart, Lung & Circulation, October 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.hlc.2016.02.021
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohamed Khaldoun Badawy, Pradip Deb, Robert Chan, Omar Farouque

Abstract

Adverse health effects of radiation exposure to staff in cardiac catheterisation laboratories have been well documented in the literature. Examples include increased risk of cataracts as well as possible malignancies. These risks can be partly mitigated by reducing scatter radiation exposure to staff during diagnostic and interventional cardiac procedures. There are currently commercially available radiation protection tools, including radioprotective caps, gloves, eyewear, thyroid collars, aprons, mounted shields, table skirts and patient drapes to protect staff from excessive radiation exposure. Furthermore, real-time dose feedback could lead to procedural changes that reduce operator dose. The objective of this review is to examine the efficacy of these tools and provide practical recommendations to reduce occupational radiation exposure with the aim of minimising long-term adverse health outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Student > Bachelor 6 19%
Researcher 5 16%
Other 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Materials Science 2 6%
Unspecified 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 2 6%
Other 5 16%
Unknown 7 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 06 June 2017.
All research outputs
#1,174,371
of 12,354,050 outputs
Outputs from Heart, Lung & Circulation
#35
of 729 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,137
of 275,299 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Heart, Lung & Circulation
#4
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,354,050 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 729 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 275,299 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 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 91% of its contemporaries.