The Efficacy of Periodic Complete Blood Count Tests in Evaluation of the Health Status of Radiation Workers in Iran: A Systematic Review.
Complete blood count (CBC)
Radiation workers
Risk
Safety
Journal
Iranian journal of public health
ISSN: 2251-6085
Titre abrégé: Iran J Public Health
Pays: Iran
ID NLM: 7505531
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
entrez:
18
6
2020
pubmed:
18
6
2020
medline:
18
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Periodic medical examinations of radiation workers are routinely conducted in many countries. Although low dose radiation (LDR) is not expected to cause a significant effect on blood count, the periodic examination usually includes reviewing the work history, general medical history, a physical examination and collecting a blood sample. Despite lymphocytes are the most sensitive cells to radiation, their counts do not show any significant change as long as the radiation level is less than a few hundreds of millisievert (mSv). In spite of this, in Iran, radiation workers, even those who work in diagnostic radiology departments, are regularly examined for blood count changes. After a detailed search in PubMed, ISI, Scopus, SID and Google Scholar, only 12 out of 650 articles matched our criteria. A review of these 12 reports was conducted. The full texts were fully reviewed by the authors. The complete blood count (CBC) test has a very low efficacy in evaluation of the adverse health effects of ionizing radiation in radiation workers. Therefore, finding alternative methods with a higher efficacy is recommended. CBC tests cannot be introduced as valid markers of potential radiation effects in most occupational exposures. Given this consideration, in periodic tests of radiation workers, cytogenetic tests can be the gold-standard method. In particular, due to its relatively low cost and good sensitivity and specificity, the dicentric assay can be promising. Moreover, the simple and rapid evaluation of micronuclei by fast automated scoring systems can be a good alternative for current low efficacy CBC tests.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Periodic medical examinations of radiation workers are routinely conducted in many countries. Although low dose radiation (LDR) is not expected to cause a significant effect on blood count, the periodic examination usually includes reviewing the work history, general medical history, a physical examination and collecting a blood sample. Despite lymphocytes are the most sensitive cells to radiation, their counts do not show any significant change as long as the radiation level is less than a few hundreds of millisievert (mSv). In spite of this, in Iran, radiation workers, even those who work in diagnostic radiology departments, are regularly examined for blood count changes.
METHODS
METHODS
After a detailed search in PubMed, ISI, Scopus, SID and Google Scholar, only 12 out of 650 articles matched our criteria. A review of these 12 reports was conducted. The full texts were fully reviewed by the authors.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The complete blood count (CBC) test has a very low efficacy in evaluation of the adverse health effects of ionizing radiation in radiation workers. Therefore, finding alternative methods with a higher efficacy is recommended.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
CBC tests cannot be introduced as valid markers of potential radiation effects in most occupational exposures. Given this consideration, in periodic tests of radiation workers, cytogenetic tests can be the gold-standard method. In particular, due to its relatively low cost and good sensitivity and specificity, the dicentric assay can be promising. Moreover, the simple and rapid evaluation of micronuclei by fast automated scoring systems can be a good alternative for current low efficacy CBC tests.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
628-636Informations de copyright
Copyright © Iranian Public Health Association & Tehran University of Medical Sciences.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.
Références
Radiat Meas. 2011 Sep 1;46(9):923-928
pubmed: 21949482
Mutat Res. 1991 Aug;263(4):197-201
pubmed: 1861683
Indian J Physiol Pharmacol. 2009 Apr-Jun;53(2):181-4
pubmed: 20112823
Radiat Environ Biophys. 2011 Nov;50(4):571-8
pubmed: 21894441
J Pharmacopuncture. 2017 Jun;20(2):107-111
pubmed: 30087787
Genome Integr. 2019 Jul 19;10:2
pubmed: 31391915
J Biomed Phys Eng. 2016 Mar 01;6(1):21-6
pubmed: 27026951
Int J Radiat Biol. 1990 Oct;58(4):651-9
pubmed: 1976725
Am J Ind Med. 1996 Mar;29(3):247-57
pubmed: 8833777
Dose Response. 2019 Mar 12;17(1):1559325819833473
pubmed: 30890901
Int Arch Med. 2011 Feb 23;4:8
pubmed: 21345203
Teratog Carcinog Mutagen. 2001;21(6):431-9
pubmed: 11746256
Occup Environ Med. 2016 Oct;73(10):694-700
pubmed: 27466611
Genome Integr. 2017 Jan 23;8:3
pubmed: 28250910
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2005;208(3):179-91
pubmed: 15971857
Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2017 Nov-Dec;22(6):470-476
pubmed: 28951698
Nephron Exp Nephrol. 2003;94(1):e12-6
pubmed: 12806183
Nature. 1979 Feb 15;277(5697):531-4
pubmed: 763341
Arh Hig Rada Toksikol. 2008 Dec;59(4):251-9
pubmed: 19064362
F1000Prime Rep. 2014 Jun 02;6:45
pubmed: 24991422
Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2001;94(1-2):129-32
pubmed: 11487820
Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2014 Jun;27(3):467-73
pubmed: 24952144