For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
11
views
26
references
 Top references
cited by
18
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      43
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Occupational exposure of healthcare and research staff to static magnetic stray fields from 1.5–7 Tesla MRI scanners is associated with reporting of transient symptoms

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          Limited data is available about incidence of acute transient symptoms associated with occupational exposure to static magnetic stray fields from MRI scanners. We aimed to assess the incidence of these symptoms among healthcare and research staff working with MRI scanners, and their association with static magnetic field exposure.

          Methods

          We performed an observational study among 361 employees of 14 clinical and research MRI facilities in The Netherlands. Each participant completed a diary during one or more work shifts inside and/or outside the MRI facility, reporting work activities and symptoms (from a list of potentially MRI-related symptoms, complemented with unrelated symptoms) experienced during a working day. We analysed 633 diaries. Exposure categories were defined by strength and type of MRI scanner, using non-MRI shifts as the reference category for statistical analysis. Non-MRI shifts originated from MRI staff who also participated on MRI days, as well as CT radiographers who never worked with MRI.

          Results

          Varying per exposure category, symptoms were reported during 16–39% of the MRI work shifts. We observed a positive association between scanner strength and reported symptoms among healthcare and research staff working with closed-bore MRI scanners of 1.5 Tesla (T) and higher (1.5 T OR=1.88; 3.0 T OR=2.14; 7.0 T OR=4.17). This finding was mainly driven by reporting of vertigo and metallic taste.

          Conclusions

          The results suggest an exposure-response association between exposure to strong static magnetic fields (and associated motion-induced time-varying magnetic fields) and reporting of transient symptoms on the same day of exposure.

          Trial registration number

          11-032/C

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          FlexMix: A General Framework for Finite Mixture Models and Latent Class Regression inR

          Friedrich Leisch (2004)
          Article 0 comments Cited 101 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Magnetic-field-induced vertigo: a theoretical and experimental investigation.

            P. Gowland, P Glover, I Cavin … (2007)
            Vertigo-like sensations or apparent perception of movement are reported by some subjects and operators in and around high field whole body magnetic resonance body scanners. Induced currents (which modulate the firing rate of the vestibular hair cell), magneto-hydrodynamics (MDH), and tissue magnetic susceptibility differences have all been proposed as possible mechanisms for this effect. In this article, we examine the theory underlying each of these mechanisms and explore resulting predictions. Experimental evidence is summarised in the following findings: 30% of subjects display a postural sway response at a field-gradient product of 1 T(2)m(-1); a determining factor for experience of vertigo is the total unipolar integrated field change over a period greater than 1 s; the perception of dizziness is not necessarily related to a high value of the rate of change of magnetic field; eight of ten subjects reported sensations ranging from mild to severe when exposed to a magnetic field change of the order of 4.7 T in 1.9 s; no subjects reported any response when exposed to 50 ms pulses of dB/dt of 2 Ts(-1) amplitude. The experimental evidence supports the hypothesis that magnetic-field related vertigo results from both magnetic susceptibility differences between vestibular organs and surrounding fluid, and induced currents acting on the vestibular hair cells. Both mechanisms are consistent with theoretical predictions.
            Article 0 comments Cited 36 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Subjective acceptance of 7 Tesla MRI for human imaging.

              Mark Ladd, Christoph Moenninghoff, Stefan Maderwald … (2008)
              One prerequisite for transferring ultra-high-field magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (>3T) into clinical diagnostic workup is a low rate of side effects. To our knowledge, publications of subjective acceptance and willingness to undergo examinations at >3T are rare. We present first results from our research site. Exposure to 7 T whole-body MRI of head, extremities, or breast was assessed in 102 subjects. They judged sources of discomfort (examination duration, room temperature) and physiological sensations (vertigo, light flashes) on a 10-point scale, differentiating between examination phases: table stationary or moving. For comparison, the same questionnaire was completed by 43 of these subjects after undergoing a 1.5 T examination. Vertigo was the most pronounced sensation at 7 T with 5% rating it as very unpleasant (none at 1.5 T). This should be compared with the fact that the lengthy exam duration was regarded as even more uncomfortable. Compared to 1.5 T, average study duration at 7 T was roughly doubled, and 7 T elicited a wider range of complaints. Although the number of side effects is increased at 7 T compared to 1.5 T, 7 T was well tolerated by the majority of subjects. Further data collection is necessary for better understanding of these effects.
              Article 0 comments Cited 28 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Occup Environ Med
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Occup Environ Med
                Journal ID (hwp): oemed
                Journal ID (publisher-id): oem
                Title: Occupational and Environmental Medicine
                Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                ISSN (Print): 1351-0711
                ISSN (Electronic): 1470-7926
                Publication date (Print): June 2014
                Publication date (Electronic): 8 April 2014
                Volume: 71
                Issue: 6
                Pages: 423-429
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Environmental Epidemiology, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University , Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, Centre of Epidemiology, Institute of Population Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre, The University of Manchester , Manchester, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Professor Hans Kromhout, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, PO Box 80178, Utrecht 3508 TD, The Netherlands; h.kromhout@ 123456uu.nl
                Article
                Publisher ID: oemed-2013-101890
                DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2013-101890
                PMC ID: 4033112
                PubMed ID: 24714654
                SO-VID: 38502cca-4922-44fd-ac12-eee10e64a530
                Copyright © Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
                License:

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

                History
                Date received : 27 September 2013
                Date revision received : 26 February 2014
                Date accepted : 16 March 2014
                Categories
                Subject: 1506
                Subject: Workplace
                Series title: Original article
                Custom metadata
                special-feature unlocked

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Occupational & Environmental medicine
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Occupational & Environmental medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content43

                See all similar

                Cited by18

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors435

                See all reference authors