Document Detail


A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial comparing two screening devices for radiation contamination.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  20836788     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
OBJECTIVES: This exploratory study compared the screening ability of a newly introduced radiation detection portal with a traditional Geiger counter for detection of radiation contamination in the setting of a mass casualty training exercise.
METHODS: Following a pretrial evaluation of interobserver reliability for Geiger counter use, 30 volunteers were randomly assigned to don gowns containing three disks, each of which was either a sham resembling the radioactive samples or an actual cesium-137 sample; each subject participated a minimum of four times with different gowns each time. Each subject underwent standard radioactivity screening with the Geiger counter and the portal.
RESULTS: Interobserver reliability was excellent between the two Geiger counter screeners in the pretrial exercise, correctly identifying 101 of 102 sham and radioactive samples (κ = 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.94 to 1.00). For radioactively labeled subjects across all bodily locations, the portal (43/61, or 70.5%; 95% CI = 58.1% to 80.5%) was less sensitive than the Geiger counter screening (61/61, or 100%; 95% CI = 92.9% to 100%), which resulted in a portal false-negative rate of 29.5%. For radiation detection in the posterior thorax, the portal radiation screening (4/19, or 21.1%; 95% CI = 8% to 43.9%) was less accurate than the Geiger counter (19/19, or 100%; 95% CI 80.2% to 100%). In contrast, there were no major differences between the portal and the Geiger counter for radiation detection at the left shoulder, right shoulder, or sham (nonradiation) detection. There were no false-positive detections of the sham-labeled subjects for either device, yielding a specificity of 100% for both screening modalities.
CONCLUSIONS: Geiger counter screening was more sensitive than, and equally specific to, radiation detection portal screening in detecting radioactively labeled subjects during a radiation mass casualty drill.
Authors:
Philip Salen; Mathew Porter; David Watts; Jill Stoltzfus; Alan Lynch; Christopher Michaelis; Scott Melanson
Related Documents :
12927418 - Results of the gep-isfg collaborative study on two y-strs tetraplexes: gepy i (dys461, ...
10568298 - The iaea worldwide intercomparison exercises (1990-1997): determination of trace elemen...
16877248 - Clinical implications of bion's thought.
20399108 - Malevolent use of radioactive materials: an international exercise in the analysis of g...
16684848 - Route of administration (enteral or parenteral) affects the contribution of l-glutamine...
12376178 - Cardiovascular responses and neurotransmission in the ventrolateral medulla during skel...
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Randomized Controlled Trial    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine     Volume:  17     ISSN:  1553-2712     ISO Abbreviation:  Acad Emerg Med     Publication Date:  2010 Sep 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-09-14     Completed Date:  2011-02-11     Revised Date:  2011-04-28    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  9418450     Medline TA:  Acad Emerg Med     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  1020-3     Citation Subset:  IM    
Copyright Information:
2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Luke's Hospital, Bethlehem, PA, USA. salenp@slhn.org
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Cesium Radioisotopes / analysis*
Double-Blind Method
Environmental Monitoring / methods*
Humans
Observer Variation
Radioactive Hazard Release
Radiometry / methods*
Sensitivity and Specificity
Chemical
Reg. No./Substance:
0/Cesium Radioisotopes
Comments/Corrections
Comment In:
Acad Emerg Med. 2011 Jan;18(1):105   [PMID:  21175926 ]

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Prospective evaluation of real-time use of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria in an academic e...
Next Document:  The learning curve of resident physicians using emergency ultrasonography for obstructive uropathy.