Evidence Hub

Prevalence of the use of dosimeters for ionizing radiation from fluoroscopy - a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Videira S, Rodrigues M, Santos J, Guedes J, Martins J, Vieira da Silva M

Physica medica : PM : an international journal devoted to the applications of physics to medicine and biology : official journal of the Italian Association of Biomedical Physics (AIFB), 2025

11,067 participants

Abstract

This study aims to assess the prevalence of individual dosimeter use among workers exposed to ionizing radiation during fluoroscopy-guided procedures. Additionally, factors contributing to its use were identified. Studies were identified through searches in five databases on 13 April 2024. Additionally, snowballing techniques were employed. The review followed PRISMA guidelines and the CoCoPop model. A narrative synthesis, bibliometric analysis, and meta-analysis were performed. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for prevalence studies. Fifty studies involving 11,067 individuals were included. Orthopedics/traumatology was the most studied specialty (46 %). Median use rates were: 24 %(IQR = 44 %) for eye lens dosimeters, 15 %(IQR = 13 %) for electronic real-time dosimeters, 27 %(IQR = 42 %) for wrist/finger dosimeters, 25 %(IQR = 23 %) for collar/thyroid dosimeters and 5 % for ankle dosimeter; 15 %(IQR = 78 %) reported no monitoring device. In 15 studies (30 %) with 4,188 individuals (38 %), the overall prevalence of "always" using whole-body dosimeters was 43 %[95 %CI:24-62]. By continent, the highest prevalence was found in Africa (75 %[95 % CI: 46-95]), while the lowest was in the "Americas" (33 %[95 % CI: 16-52]). Significant moderator effects were found: higher prevalence in "Africa" (p = 0.04), "gastroenterology" (p = 0.04), and "involving radiology" (p = 0.01); lower in "orthopedics" (p = 0.01) and "physicians" (p = 0.03). No…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 11,067 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free