British Association of MR Radiographers (BAMRR) safety survey 2005: potential impact of European Union (EU) Physical Agents Directive (PAD) on electromagnetic fields (EMF).

Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2007 · Unclear · Low evidence

← Research stream

UnclearLow evidencePaper 5046

Questionnaire responses suggested that staff presence in the magnet room occurs for an estimated 3% of MR examinations in the UK, and some of these examinations would be impossible without staff in the room, potentially requiring CT instead of MRI. The additi…

Study snapshot

PublicationJournal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2007

Study typecross_sectional

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

PURPOSE: To measure the potential impact on clinical MRI practice in the UK of the European Union (EU) Physical Agents Directive (PAD) on electromagnetic fields (EMF). There is evidence that the exposure limit values contained in the PAD will make it impossible for members of staff to stand close to the magnet during scanning; currently this is common practice in order to provide care and support for vulnerable patients. Interventional MR procedures will also be impossible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Members of the British Association of MR Radiographers (BAMRR) were sent a questionnaire to assess the impact of the PAD and related safety issues. RESULTS: A total of 25% of responding sites have at least one sedation/general anesthesia (GA) session per week, while only 3% reported any interventional practice. A total of 29% of respondents reported that operators give a bolus injection by hand during contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) scans. Overall it is estimated that 3% of all MR examinations in the UK are performed with a staff member in the magnet room. Some of these examinations would be impossible without staff in the room and it would be necessary for patients to have computed tomography (CT) instead of MRI. The additional radiation dose of substituting CT for MRI is estimated at 224 man-sievert per year. CONCLUSION: While the financial costs of implementing the PAD (EMF) are relatively low, the social costs are difficult to quantify but potentially more alarming.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typecross_sectional

Effect directionunclear

PopulationUK MRI sites / members of the British Association of MR Radiographers (BAMRR)

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Outcomes measured

Estimated proportion of MRI exams requiring staff presence in magnet room
Reported frequency of sedation/general anesthesia sessions
Reported interventional MRI practice
Reported manual bolus injection during CE-MRA
Estimated additional population radiation dose if CT substitutes for MRI (man-sievert/year)
Perceived/estimated impact of EU Physical Agents Directive (EMF) on clinical MRI practice

Limitations

Survey-based questionnaire; response rate and representativeness not reported in abstract
Sample size not stated in abstract
Estimates (e.g., % exams with staff in room; man-sievert/year) appear model-based and depend on assumptions not described in abstract
Focuses on policy impact and practice implications rather than measured EMF exposure levels or health outcomes

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "cross_sectional",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "MRI occupational exposure (staff near magnet during scanning)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "UK MRI sites / members of the British Association of MR Radiographers (BAMRR)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Estimated proportion of MRI exams requiring staff presence in magnet room",
    "Reported frequency of sedation/general anesthesia sessions",
    "Reported interventional MRI practice",
    "Reported manual bolus injection during CE-MRA",
    "Estimated additional population radiation dose if CT substitutes for MRI (man-sievert/year)",
    "Perceived/estimated impact of EU Physical Agents Directive (EMF) on clinical MRI practice"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Questionnaire responses suggested that staff presence in the magnet room occurs for an estimated 3% of MR examinations in the UK, and some of these examinations would be impossible without staff in the room, potentially requiring CT instead of MRI. The additional radiation dose from substituting CT for MRI was estimated at 224 man-sievert per year.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [
    "Survey-based questionnaire; response rate and representativeness not reported in abstract",
    "Sample size not stated in abstract",
    "Estimates (e.g., % exams with staff in room; man-sievert/year) appear model-based and depend on assumptions not described in abstract",
    "Focuses on policy impact and practice implications rather than measured EMF exposure levels or health outcomes"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "MRI",
    "radiographers",
    "occupational exposure",
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "Physical Agents Directive",
    "EU policy",
    "sedation",
    "general anesthesia",
    "interventional MRI",
    "CE-MRA",
    "CT substitution",
    "radiation dose"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.86,
      "reason": "Assesses implications of EMF exposure limits for MRI staff practice (standing near magnet during scanning)."
    },
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.3,
      "reason": "Discusses exposure limit values in an EU directive; could relate to guideline/limit-setting context, though ICNIRP/WHO are not named in abstract."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21154
PubMed: 17969163

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library