Literature DB >> 18591990

Implementing EPR Dosimetry for Life-Threatening Incidents: Factors Beyond Technical Performance.

Ann Barry Flood1, Shayan Bhattacharyya, R Javier Nicolalde, Harold M Swartz.   

Abstract

Starting with the assumption that a device to detect unplanned radiation exposures is technically superior to current technology, we examine the additional stakeholders and processes that must be considered to move the device from the lab into use. The use is to provide reliable information to triage people for early treatment of exposure to ionizing radiation that could lead to the Acute Radiation Syndrome. The scenario is a major accident or terrorist event that leaves a large number of people potentially exposed, with the resulting need to identify those to treat promptly or not. In vivo EPR dosimetry is the exemplar of such a technique.Three major areas are reviewed: policy considerations, regulatory clearance, and production of the device. Our analysis of policy-making indicates that the current system is very complex, with multiple significant decision-makers who may have conflicting agendas. Adoption of new technologies by policy-makers is further complicated because many sources of expert input already have made public stances or have reasons to prefer current solutions, e.g., some may have conflicts of interest in approving new devices because they are involved with the development or adoption of competing techniques. Regulatory clearance is complicated by not being able to collect evidence via clinical trials of its intended use, but pathways for approval for emergency use are under development by the FDA. The production of the new device could be problematical if the perceived market is too limited, particularly for private manufacturers; for in vivo EPR dosimetry the potential for other uses may be a mitigating factor.Overall we conclude that technical superiority of a technique does not in itself assure its rapid and effective adoption, even where the need is great and the alternatives are not satisfactory for large populations. Many important steps remain to achieve the goals of approval and adoption for use.

Entities:  

Year:  2007        PMID: 18591990      PMCID: PMC2083703          DOI: 10.1016/j.radmeas.2007.05.042

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiat Meas        ISSN: 1350-4487            Impact factor:   1.898


  5 in total

1.  How to manage the worried well.

Authors:  Frank Diamond
Journal:  Manag Care       Date:  2003-06

Review 2.  Emotional and behavioral consequences of bioterrorism: planning a public health response.

Authors:  Bradley D Stein; Terri L Tanielian; David P Eisenman; Donna J Keyser; M Audrey Burnam; Harold A Pincus
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 4.911

3.  Medical devices; exception from general requirements for informed consent. Interim final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2006-06-07

4.  Medical management of the acute radiation syndrome: recommendations of the Strategic National Stockpile Radiation Working Group.

Authors:  Jamie K Waselenko; Thomas J MacVittie; William F Blakely; Nicki Pesik; Albert L Wiley; William E Dickerson; Horace Tsu; Dennis L Confer; C Norman Coleman; Thomas Seed; Patrick Lowry; James O Armitage; Nicholas Dainiak
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-06-15       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 5.  Clinical applications of EPR: overview and perspectives.

Authors:  Harold M Swartz; Nadeem Khan; Jay Buckey; Richard Comi; Lisa Gould; Oleg Grinberg; Alan Hartford; Harriet Hopf; Huagang Hou; Eugen Hug; Akinori Iwasaki; Piotr Lesniewski; Ildar Salikhov; Tadeusz Walczak
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 4.044

  5 in total
  6 in total

1.  A Deployable In Vivo EPR Tooth Dosimeter for Triage After a Radiation Event Involving Large Populations.

Authors:  Benjamin B Williams; Ruhong Dong; Ann Barry Flood; Oleg Grinberg; Maciej Kmiec; Piotr N Lesniewski; Thomas P Matthews; Roberto J Nicolalde; Tim Raynolds; Ildar K Salikhov; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Radiat Meas       Date:  2011-09-01       Impact factor: 1.898

2.  Physically-based biodosimetry using in vivo EPR of teeth in patients undergoing total body irradiation.

Authors:  Benjamin B Williams; Ruhong Dong; Roberto J Nicolalde; Thomas P Matthews; David J Gladstone; Eugene Demidenko; Bassem I Zaki; Ildar K Salikhov; Piotr N Lesniewski; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Int J Radiat Biol       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 2.694

3.  Development and validation of an ex vivo electron paramagnetic resonance fingernail biodosimetric method.

Authors:  Xiaoming He; Steven G Swarts; Eugene Demidenko; Ann B Flood; Oleg Grinberg; Jiang Gui; Michael Mariani; Stephen D Marsh; Andres E Ruuge; Jason W Sidabras; Dmitry Tipikin; Dean E Wilcox; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Radiat Prot Dosimetry       Date:  2014-05-06       Impact factor: 0.972

4.  The view from the trenches: part 2-technical considerations for EPR screening.

Authors:  Roberto J Nicolalde; Robert M Gougelet; Michael Rea; Benjamin B Williams; Ruhong Dong; Maciej M Kmiec; Piotr N Lesniewski; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.316

5.  Development of in vivo tooth EPR for individual radiation dose estimation and screening.

Authors:  Benjamin B Williams; Ruhong Dong; Maciej Kmiec; Greg Burke; Eugene Demidenko; David Gladstone; Roberto J Nicolalde; Artur Sucheta; Piotr Lesniewski; Harold M Swartz
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.316

6.  Assessment of biodosimetry methods for a mass-casualty radiological incident: medical response and management considerations.

Authors:  Julie M Sullivan; Pataje G S Prasanna; Marcy B Grace; Lynne K Wathen; Rodney L Wallace; John F Koerner; C Norman Coleman
Journal:  Health Phys       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 1.316

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.