[Investigation of non-ionizing radiation hazards from physiotherapy equipment in 16 medical institutions].

Zhonghua lao dong wei sheng zhi ye bing za zhi = Zhonghua laodong weisheng zhiyebing zazhi = Chinese journal of industrial hygiene and occupational diseases · 2013 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream

MixedLow evidencePaper 6537

Study snapshot

PublicationZhonghua lao dong wei sheng zhi ye bing za zhi = Zhonghua laodong weisheng zhiyebing zazhi = Chinese journal of industrial hygiene and occupational diseases · 2013

Study typeexposure_assessment

Reported directionMixed

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the non-ionizing radiation hazards from physiotherapy equipment in medical institutions and to explore feasible control measures for occupational diseases. METHODS: On-site measurement and assessment of ultra-high-frequency radiation, high-frequency electromagnetic field, microwave radiation, and laser radiation were carried out in 16 medical institutions using the methods in the Measurement of Physical Agents in Workplace (GBZ/T189-2007). RESULTS: All the investigated medical institutions failed to take effective protective measures against non-ionizing radiation. Of the 17 ultra-short wave therapy apparatus, 70.6%, 47.1%, and 17.64% had a safe intensity of ultra-high-frequency radiation on the head, chest, and abdomen, respectively. Of the 4 external high-frequency thermotherapy apparatus, 100%, 75%, and 75%had a safe intensity of high-frequency electromagnetic field on the head, chest, and abdomen, respectively. In addition, the intensities of microwave radiation and laser radiation produced by the 18 microwave therapy apparatus and 12 laser therapeutic apparatus met national health standards. CONCLUSION: There are non-ionizing radiation hazards from physiotherapy equipment in medical institutions, and effective prevention and control measures are necessary.

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 typeexposure_assessment

Effect directionmixed

PopulationWorkers in medical institutions (occupational setting)

Sample size16

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

On-site measurements in 16 medical institutions found that none had effective protective measures against non-ionizing radiation. For 17 ultra-short wave therapy apparatus, the proportion with safe ultra-high-frequency radiation intensity was 70.6% (head), 47.1% (chest), and 17.64% (abdomen). For 4 external high-frequency thermotherapy apparatus, the proportion with safe high-frequency electromagnetic field intensity was 100% (head), 75% (chest), and 75% (abdomen). Intensities from 18 microwave therapy apparatus and 12 laser therapeutic apparatus met national health standards.

Outcomes measured

Workplace intensity measurements of ultra-high-frequency radiation
Workplace intensity measurements of high-frequency electromagnetic fields
Workplace intensity measurements of microwave radiation
Workplace intensity measurements of laser radiation
Compliance with national health standards / safe intensity at head, chest, abdomen
Presence/absence of protective measures

Limitations

No specific frequencies, measurement values, or exposure limits are reported in the abstract
Health outcomes are not assessed; only exposure levels and compliance are described
Sampling/selection of institutions and devices is not described in the abstract

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "exposure_assessment",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "physiotherapy equipment in medical institutions (ultra-short wave therapy, external high-frequency thermotherapy, microwave therapy, laser therapeutic apparatus)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Workers in medical institutions (occupational setting)",
  "sample_size": 16,
  "outcomes": [
    "Workplace intensity measurements of ultra-high-frequency radiation",
    "Workplace intensity measurements of high-frequency electromagnetic fields",
    "Workplace intensity measurements of microwave radiation",
    "Workplace intensity measurements of laser radiation",
    "Compliance with national health standards / safe intensity at head, chest, abdomen",
    "Presence/absence of protective measures"
  ],
  "main_findings": "On-site measurements in 16 medical institutions found that none had effective protective measures against non-ionizing radiation. For 17 ultra-short wave therapy apparatus, the proportion with safe ultra-high-frequency radiation intensity was 70.6% (head), 47.1% (chest), and 17.64% (abdomen). For 4 external high-frequency thermotherapy apparatus, the proportion with safe high-frequency electromagnetic field intensity was 100% (head), 75% (chest), and 75% (abdomen). Intensities from 18 microwave therapy apparatus and 12 laser therapeutic apparatus met national health standards.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "No specific frequencies, measurement values, or exposure limits are reported in the abstract",
    "Health outcomes are not assessed; only exposure levels and compliance are described",
    "Sampling/selection of institutions and devices is not described in the abstract"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "non-ionizing radiation",
    "occupational exposure",
    "physiotherapy equipment",
    "ultra-high-frequency radiation",
    "high-frequency electromagnetic field",
    "microwave therapy",
    "laser therapy",
    "workplace measurement",
    "China"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "occupational-exposure",
      "weight": 0.9,
      "reason": "Workplace measurements of non-ionizing radiation from physiotherapy equipment and discussion of occupational disease prevention/control."
    }
  ]
}

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: Not supplied
PubMed: 24370361

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library