Radioprotection 60-3 | Page 37

M. Almalki et al.: Radioprotection 2025, 60( 3), 234 – 241 237

3.50

Overall 5-Years Mean( mSv)

3.23

3.00 2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.62

1.17 0.86

1.13

0.00

Fig. 2. Overall five-year mean radiation exposure across medical professions( 2018 – 2022).

0.89 ± 0.44 mSv, and radiologic technologists 1.61 ± 0.84 mSv. The results of the T-Test showed a significant difference in the radiation exposure across the years under study( p <. 001). It is important to note that the calculated AMED values represent the mean dose exposure across professionals within each group and do not account for individual variations. Therefore, while the AMED values are below the occupational limit of 20 mSv, these averages do not reflect individual monitoring thresholds, which apply to personal exposure. This distinction underscores the necessity of individualized monitoring to identify outliers and ensure compliance with regulatory limits. There were three cases in 2022 where the AMEDs exceeded the occupational dose limit of 20 mSv per year among cardiologists, with individual doses recorded at 48.68 mSv, 32.41 mSv, and 24.38 mSv. However, these instances involved different individuals and remained under the 50 mSv exception permitted for a single year within the 5-year period.

The overall MED-5Y across various medical professions from 2018 to 2022 was analyzed and presented in Figure 2. The data revealed that anesthesiologists experienced an average radiation exposure of 0.62 ± 0.30 mSv, showing a lower level of exposure compared to other roles. Cardiologists recorded the highest mean exposure at 3.23 ± 7.37 mSv, reflecting the significant radiation exposure inherent in their procedures. Nurses had a mean exposure of 1.17 ± 0.56 mSv, and radiologic technologists showed a mean exposure of 1.13 ± 0.38 mSv. Radiologists experienced a relatively lower level of exposure, with a mean of 0.86 ± 0.26 mSv.

The ANOVA results indicated significant differences in MED-5Y among the professions( F = 14.8, p <. 001). Subsequent Tukey Post-Hoc Tests revealed specific contrasts between the groups. There was a significant mean difference in exposure between anesthesiologists and cardiologists( �2.61 mSv, p = 0.019). Similarly, cardiologists showed

significantly higher exposure compared to nurses( 2.06 mSv, p = 0.001) and radiologic technologists( 2.1 mSv, p = 0.009). However, the differences between anesthesiologists and nurses, radiologists, and radiologic technologists were not statistically significant, with p-values exceeding 0.05. The comparisons involving nurses, radiologists, and radiologic technologists also yielded non-significant differences.

The overall MED-5Y across various medical professions was analyzed by gender, as illustrated in Figure 3. The results revealed distinct gender-based variations in exposure levels. In anesthesiologists, females exhibited a higher mean radiation exposure of 0.75 ± 0.41 mSv compared to 0.55 ± 0.20 mSv in males, but this difference was not statistically significant( p = 0.525). Cardiologists showed a more pronounced disparity, with female cardiologists experiencing a lower mean exposure of 1.3 ± 0.26 mSv, substantially less than their male counterparts at 3.37 ± 7.61 mSv, though this difference also lacked statistical significance( p = 0.45). In the nursing field, female nurses reporteda slightly higher mean exposure of 1.25 ± 0.60 mSv than male nurses, who recorded 0.98 ± 0.42 mSv, with this difference being statistically significant( p = 0.002). Radiologists presented a similar pattern, with female radiologists experiencing a mean exposure of 1.09 ± 0.16 mSv, higher than the 0.72 ± 0.20 mSv observed in males, and this difference was also statistically significant( p = 0.024). Conversely, in Radiologic Technologists, males had a slightly higher mean exposure of 1.18 ± 0.27 mSv compared to females at 1.04 ± 0.52 mSv, but this difference was not statistically significant( p = 0.193).

4 Discussion

The present study aimed to analyze the radiation exposure across various medical professions over a five-year period from 2018 to 2022. These results underline the importance of