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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
A Review of Radiation Protection Solutions for the Staff in the Cardiac Catheterisation Laboratory
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Heart, Lung & Circulation, April 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| South Africa | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 58 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 20 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 14% |
| Engineering | 4 | 7% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 12% |
| Unknown | 23 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 29 September 2016.
All research outputs
#3,418,699
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Heart, Lung & Circulation
#163
of 1,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,936
of 315,917 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Heart, Lung & Circulation
#4
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,530 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 315,917 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.