Transient health symptoms of MRI staff working with 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla scanners in the UK
- 459 Downloads
Recent studies have consistently shown that amongst staff working with MRI, transient symptoms directly attributable to the MRI system including dizziness, nausea, tinnitus, and concentration problems are reported. This study assessed symptom prevalence and incidence in radiographers and other staff working with MRI in healthcare in the UK.
One hundred and four volunteer staff from eight sites completed a questionnaire and kept a diary to obtain information on subjective symptoms and work practices, and wore a magnetic field dosimeter during one to three randomly selected working days. Incidence of MRI-related symptoms was obtained for all shifts and prevalence of MRI-related and reference symptoms was associated to explanatory factors using ordinal regression.
Incident symptoms related to working with MRI were reported in 4 % of shifts. Prevalence of MRI-related, but not reference symptoms were associated with number of hours per week working with MRI, shift length, and stress, but not with magnetic field strength (1.5 and 3 T) or measured magnetic field exposure.
Reporting of prevalent symptoms was associated with longer duration of working in MRI departments, but not with measured field strength of exposure. Other factors related to organisation and stress seem to contribute to increased reporting of MRI-related symptoms.
• Routine work with MRI is associated with increased reporting of transient symptoms
• No link to the strength of the magnetic field was demonstrated.
• Organisational factors and stress additionally contribute to reporting of MRI-related symptoms
KeywordsEpidemiology Health Magnetic resonance imaging Occupational exposure Magnetic fields
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Frank de Vocht. The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: SK developed, produces, and licenses the dosimeters used in this study through a University of Queensland company. This study has received funding by The COLT Foundation. More than one of the authors has significant statistical expertise. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. No study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported. Methodology: prospective and retrospective, cross-sectional study/observational, multicenter study.
The authors would like to thank all participants who volunteered for this study, as well as all local coordinators.
The study was funded by a research grant from The COLT Foundation (grant number CF/01/11).
- 1.Shellock F (2001) Magnetic resonance procedures: health effects and safety. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- 2.ICNIRP (2009) Guidelines on limits of exposure to static magnetic fields. Health Phys 96:10Google Scholar
- 3.ICNIRP (2009) Amendment to the ICNIRP "Statement on medical Magnetic Resonance (MR) procedures: protection of patients". Health Phys 97:3Google Scholar
- 4.ICNIRP (2014) Guidelines for limiting exposure to electric fields induced by movement of the human body in a static magnetic field and by time-varying magnetic fields below 1 Hz. Health Phys 106:8Google Scholar
- 5.Parliament E (2013) Directive 2013/35/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 26 june 2013 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields) (20th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) and repealing Directive 2004/40/EC. Official Journal of the European Union L179/1Google Scholar
- 7.Schaap K, Christopher-de Vries Y, Mason CK, de Vocht F, Portengen L, Kromhout H (2014) 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. Occup Environ Med 71:423–429PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Golding JF (2006) Predicting individual differences in motion sickness susceptibility by questionnaire. Personal Individ Differ 41:9Google Scholar
- 27.Team RDC (2008) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
- 34.Snijders T, Bosker R (1999) Multilevel analysis. SAGE Publications Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar