Assessing the Efficacy of RADPAD Protection Drape in Reducing Radiation Exposure to Operators in the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Figure 1. Flow of the search strategy for systematic review and meta-analysis using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Figure 2. Comparison of screening time, primary operative dose, dose area product, and relative exposure between RADPAD and No-RADPAD groups. Comparison of RADPAD vs. No-RADPAD across six clinical trials: Kherad et al. [15], Murphy et al. [12], Shah et al. [14], MILD study [13], Vlastra et al. [10], and Politi et al. [11]. The figure illustrates the mean screening time (seconds), primary operator dose, dose area product, and relative exposure for procedures performed with and without RADPAD. Statistical significance is denoted by p < 0.05. RADPAD usage demonstrated a significant reduction in the primary operator’s exposure dose (OR: - 0.9, 95% CI: -1.36 to -0.43, I2 = 80.5%, p = 0.0001). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of dose area product, screening time, and relative exposure (p > 0.05). DAP: dose area product; SMD: standard mean difference.

Figure 3. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.

Figure 4. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist 2.

Figure 5. AMSTAR-2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2) guidelines checklist.

Figure 6. AMSTAR-2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2) guidelines checklist.

Figure 7. AMSTAR-2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2) guidelines checklist.

Figure 8. AMSTAR-2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews-2) guidelines checklist.

Figure 9. Cochrane risk-of-bias (ROB) tool assessment for included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Assessing the risk of bias of the included randomized clinical trials. Overall, there is a low risk of bias in the study by Vlastra et al. [10], some concerns for bias in the studies by Politi et al. [11] and Bhat et al. [13], and a high risk of bias in the studies by Kherad et al. [15], Shah et al. [14], and Murphy et al. [12].

Figure 10. Graphical abstract.