JOURNAL DESCRIPTION
The Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety journal ISSN 1024-6177 was founded in January 1956 (before December 30, 1993 it was entitled Medical Radiology, ISSN 0025-8334). In 2018, the journal received Online ISSN: 2618-9615 and was registered as an electronic online publication in Roskomnadzor on March 29, 2018. It publishes original research articles which cover questions of radiobiology, radiation medicine, radiation safety, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine and scientific reviews. In general the journal has more than 30 headings and it is of interest for specialists working in thefields of medicine¸ radiation biology, epidemiology, medical physics and technology. Since July 01, 2008 the journal has been published by State Research Center - Burnasyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of Federal Medical Biological Agency. The founder from 1956 to the present time is the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, and from 2008 to the present time is the Federal Medical Biological Agency.
Members of the editorial board are scientists specializing in the field of radiation biology and medicine, radiation protection, radiation epidemiology, radiation oncology, radiation diagnostics and therapy, nuclear medicine and medical physics. The editorial board consists of academicians (members of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS)), the full member of Academy of Medical Sciences of the Republic of Armenia, corresponding members of the RAS, Doctors of Medicine, professor, candidates and doctors of biological, physical mathematics and engineering sciences. The editorial board is constantly replenished by experts who work in the CIS and foreign countries.
Six issues of the journal are published per year, the volume is 13.5 conventional printed sheets, 88 printer’s sheets, 1.000 copies. The journal has an identical full-text electronic version, which, simultaneously with the printed version and color drawings, is posted on the sites of the Scientific Electronic Library (SEL) and the journal's website. The journal is distributed through the Rospechat Agency under the contract № 7407 of June 16, 2006, through individual buyers and commercial structures. The publication of articles is free.
The journal is included in the List of Russian Reviewed Scientific Journals of the Higher Attestation Commission. Since 2008 the journal has been available on the Internet and indexed in the RISC database which is placed on Web of Science. Since February 2nd, 2018, the journal "Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety" has been indexed in the SCOPUS abstract and citation database.
Brief electronic versions of the Journal have been publicly available since 2005 on the website of the Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety Journal: http://www.medradiol.ru. Since 2011, all issues of the journal as a whole are publicly available, and since 2016 - full-text versions of scientific articles. Since 2005, subscribers can purchase full versions of other articles of any issue only through the National Electronic Library. The editor of the Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety Journal in accordance with the National Electronic Library agreement has been providing the Library with all its production since 2005 until now.
The main working language of the journal is Russian, an additional language is English, which is used to write titles of articles, information about authors, annotations, key words, a list of literature.
Since 2017 the journal Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety has switched to digital identification of publications, assigning to each article the identifier of the digital object (DOI), which greatly accelerated the search for the location of the article on the Internet. In future it is planned to publish the English-language version of the journal Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety for its development. In order to obtain information about the publication activity of the journal in March 2015, a counter of readers' references to the materials posted on the site from 2005 to the present which is placed on the journal's website. During 2015 - 2016 years on average there were no more than 100-170 handlings per day. Publication of a number of articles, as well as electronic versions of profile monographs and collections in the public domain, dramatically increased the number of handlings to the journal's website to 500 - 800 per day, and the total number of visits to the site at the end of 2017 was more than 230.000.
The two-year impact factor of RISC, according to data for 2017, was 0.439, taking into account citation from all sources - 0.570, and the five-year impact factor of RISC - 0.352.
Issues journals
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 4
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-4-20-23
A.V. Simakov, V.N. Klochkov, Yu.V. Abramov
Radiation Safety Standards and Basic Health
Rules for Radiation Safety: Proposal on the Development of New Versions
A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: A.V. Simakov, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this work is to improve the Russian Radiation Safety Standards (NRB) in terms of the interpretation of the meaning of “the main limit of the annual effective dose” and the use of the concept of “emergency”.
In [1], proposals were submitted to discuss the changing in new versions of NRB and the Main Health Rules for Radiation Safety (OSPORB) in terms of the interpretation of the concept of “the limit of the annual effective dose of man-caused occupational exposure” and health physics regulation of radionuclide contents in solid materials for free or limited use of these materials.
The current NRB-99/2009 uses the term “radiation accident” and establishes the main limits of effective dose (Table 3.1.) for personnel and the public:
‒ for the personnel A group, the annual dose limit is 50 mSv under the mandatory condition of not exceeding the average annual value of 20 mSv for any consecutive 5 years;
‒ for the public, the annual dose limit is 5 mSv under the mandatory condition of not exceeding the average annual value of 1 mSv for any consecutive 5 years.
However, in design documentation for the construction and reconstruction of nuclear facilities, in draft regulatory and methodological documents, there are periodically misinterpretations of the main dose limits for personnel and the public and an incorrect interpretation of the term “radiation accident”. In many cases, a dose of 20 mSv is called the annual dose limit for personnel, and a dose of 50 mSv/year is either not mentioned at all, or is considered only as permissible in a radiation accident. The term “radiation accident” is often treated as a synonym for “emergency”.
The paper justifies the expediency of introducing relevant changes to the text of new NRB.
Keywords: radiation safety standards, dose limit, workers, health physics regulation
For citation: Simakov AV, Klochkov VN, Abramov YuV. Radiation Safety Standards and Basic Health Rules for Radiation Safety: Proposal on the Development of New Versions. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(4):20–23. (In Russian). DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-4-20-23
References
1. Simakov A.V., Abramov Yu.V. The Development of New Versions of the Radiation Safety Standards and the Basic Health Rules for Radiation Safety. Meditsinskaya Radiologiya i Radiatsionnaya Bezopasnost = Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2019;64;5:15–19 (In Russ.).
2. On the Radiation Safety of the Public. Federal Law dated January 09, 1996 No. 3-FZ (In Russ.).
3. On the Use of Nuclear Energy. Federal Law dated November 21, 1995 No. 170-FZ (In Russ.).
4. On the Management of Radioactive Waste and on Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation. Federal Law dated July 11, 2011 No. 190-FZ (In Russ.).
5. On the Use of Lands Affected by Radioactive and Chemical Contamination, the Carrying out the Reclamation and Cultural and Technical Work on these Lands, the Establishment of Protected Zones and the Preservation of Objects Located on these Lands. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated February 27, 2004 No. 112 (In Russ.).
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.
Article received: 20.02.2022. Accepted for publication: 27.03.2023.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 4
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-4-24-27
Yu.D. Udalov, T.V. Sharapova
Features of Radiation Safety Control at the Federal State Budgetary Institution «Federal Scientific Clinical Center for Medical Radiology and Oncology» of the Federal Medical Biological Agency
1 Federal Scientific Clinical Center for Medical Radiology and Oncology, Dimitrovgrad, Russia
2A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: Tatiana Valeryevna Sharapova, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To assess the state of radiation safety at nuclear facilities of the FSCCRO.
Material and methods: The Federal Scientific Clinical Center for Medical Radiology and Oncology of the FMBA of Russia has three radiation-hazardous facilities on one site, which implies the need for strict compliance with all radiation safety requirements. As a part of the study, the analysis of reports based on the Safety Guidelines for the Use of Atomic Energy, was carried out in order to comply with the requirements of regulatory documents on radiation safety when performing work on the declared types of activities, taking into account the specifics of the institution’s “closed cycle” working mode. The article also presents the annual exposure doses of the category of personnel working with technogenic sources of ionizing radiation (group A) or being under the terms works in the field of their impact (group B) for the period from 2020 to 2022. The analysis of collective and mean radiation doses of the Group A personnel is done for the specified period.
Results: A three-year analysis of the state of radiation safety at the Center showed that the radiation situation at nuclear facilities meets the requirements of the current legislation of the Russian Federation in terms of radiation parameters. There were no cases of exceeding the established control levels of personnel individual radiation doses for the period 2020-2022 as of March 3, 2023.
Conclusion: There are no deviations from the requirements of regulatory documents on radiation safety when performing work on the declared types of activities. The experience of the radiation safety service of the Center can be used when commissioning similar facilities on the territory of the Russian Federation.
Keywords: nuclear facility, radiation control, radiation safety
For citation: Udalov YuD, Sharapova TV. Features of Radiation Safety Control at the Federal State Budgetary Institution «Federal Scientific Clinical Center for Medical Radiology and Oncology» of the Federal Medical Biological Agency // Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(4):24–27. (In Russian). DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-4-24-27
References
1. Udalov Yu.D., Tikhomirov N.E., Sharapova T.V., Kasymova O.A. Features of Ensuring Radiation Safety in the FSCCRO of FMBA of Russia. Meditsinskaya Radiologiya i Radiatsionnaya Bezopasnost = Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2022. Т.67, № 3. С. 94-98. DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2022-67-3-94-98 (In Russ.).
2. Ilin L.A., Samoylov A.S. The Role of Radiobiology and Radiation Medicine in Providing Protection Against the Effects of Ionizing Radiation (Domestic Experience). Vestnik Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk = Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2021;91;6:550-559. DOI 10.31857/S086958732105011X (In Russ.).
3. Eliseyev S.V., Sharapova T.V. Ensuring Radiation Safety and Organization of Radiation Monitoring in the Federal State Budgetary Institution of the Federal Institute of Health and Medicine of the Federal Medical and Biological Agency of Russia. Yubileynaya Mezhdunarodnaya Nauchno-Prakticheskaya Konferentsiya FGBU GNTS FMBTS im. A.I.Burnazyana FMBA Rossii: 75 Let na Strazhe Zdorovya Lyudey = A.I. Burnazyan FMBA of Russia: 75 Years on Guard of People’s Health. Abstracts of the reports of the Anniversary International Scientific and Practical Conference, Moscow, November 16–17, 2021. Moscow, A.I. Burnazyana FMBC Publ., 2021. P. 88-90 (In Russ.).
4. NRB-99/2009. Radiation Safety Standards. Sanitary Rules and Regulations SanPiN 2.6.1.2523-09. Moscow Publ., 2009. 100 p. (In Russ.).
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The work was carried out within the framework of applied research works on the topics «DiaFtor», «223-Radium» and «Radior-25» (state assignment of the FMBA of Russia №388-03-2023-114).
Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.
Article received: 20.02.2022. Accepted for publication: 27.03.2023.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 4
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-4-35-42
I.A. Galstian, A.Yu. Bushmanov, N.A. Metlyaeva, M.V. Konchalovsky,
V.Yu. Nugis, F.S. Torubarov, O.V. Shcherbatykh, Z.F. Zvereva, L.A. Yunanova
Dynamics Of Peripheral Blood Parameters in Different Periods
of Chronic Radiation Syndrome after Chronic Exposure with Different Dose Rates
A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: I.А. Galstyan, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: To study the effect of the radiation dose rate on the dynamics of peripheral blood indicators in various periods of chronic radiation syndrome (CRS), which developed as a result of professional prolonged radiation exposure in a cohort of former employees of the Mayak plant who underwent inpatient examination at the clinic of the A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center of the FMBA of Russia in the period up to 1995.
Material and methods: The study of the dynamics of absolute peripheral blood indices in former employees of Mayak plant who were exposed to prolonged industrial radiation with a dose rate of less than 0.001 Gy/day (25 people), 0.003‒0.007 Gy/day (12 people) and 0.008‒0.07 G/day (15 people) during the periods of formation, outcomes and immediate, as well as long-term consequences of CRS.
Statistical processing of the material was performed using the IBM SPSS Statistics software package 23.0 using the Kruskal–Wallis criteria and the Mann–Whitney U-test for independent samples. The results obtained were considered statistically reliable at p < 0.05.
Results: In a group of patients irradiated with a dose rate of 0.008‒0.07 Gy/day during the periods of formation, as well as the outcomes and immediate consequences of CRS, platelet-, leuco- and deep neutropenia were noted. A decrease in the number of erythrocytes and hemoglobin was detected only in the period of outcomes and immediate consequences. The development of agranulocytosis and anemic syndrome are signs that distinguish the course of CRS in this group of patients from the clinical picture of typical CRS. In the period of long-term consequences, 60 % of patients (9 out of 15) developed oncohematological diseases.
At an irradiation power of 0.003‒0.007 Gy/day anemic syndrome was found in 4 out of 12 patients. Leukopenia was observed in the periods of outcomes and immediate consequences. Granulocytopenia was detected in all three periods of the course of CRS. In the long term,
2 patients from this group developed oncohematological diseases
At an irradiation power of less than 0.001 Gy/day shallow thrombocytopenia and neutropenia are noted in the periods of outcomes and immediate consequences of CRS. In the period of long-term consequences, all the average values of peripheral blood indicators correspond to normal levels.
Conclusions: With prolonged irradiation of a person with a dose rate of 0.008‒0.07 Gy/ day or more, with the accumulation of a total dose of 1.7‒9.6 Gy and a contact duration of 6‒96 months, one can expect the development of CRS with a peculiar subacute clinical course of bone marrow syndrome (BMS), manifested by the defeat of all three hematopoietic sprouts, the development of agranulocytosis, anemia and, probably, in 60 % of cases of leukemia development with an unfavorable prognosis for the patient’s life. The main factor determining this feature of the course of BMC CRS is the dose rate, which exceeds 0.008 Gy / day (2 Gr/year).
At a dose rate of 0.003‒0.007 Gy / day (0.7‒1.7 Gy / year), the course of CRS with the development of agranulocytosis is possible in 25 %, anemia – in 33 % of observations. This course of the disease is most likely with a dose rate approaching the upper limit of the named range and high total doses. In other cases, the course of the disease is favorable. In the long-term period, moderate, transient leuko-, neutro- and thrombocytopenia are possible.
With prolonged irradiation with a dose rate of less than 0.001 Gy / day (0.25 Gy / year), the course of the disease is relatively favorable with almost complete restoration of hematopoiesis in the long term.
Keywords: occupational exposure, tissue reactions, radiation dose rate, chronic radiation sickness, bone marrow syndrome, agranulocytosis, anemia
For citation: Galstian IA, Bushmanov AYu, Metlyaeva NA, Konchalovsky MV, Nugis VYu, Torubarov FS, Shcherbatykh OV, Zvereva ZF, Yunanova LA. Dynamics Of Peripheral Blood Parameters in Different Periods of Chronic Radiation Syndrome after Chronic Exposure with Different Dose Rates. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(4):35–42. (In Russian). DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-4-35-42
References
1. Guskova A.K., Baysogolov G.D. Luchevaya Bolezn Cheloveka = Human Radiation Sickness. Moscow, Meditsina Publ., 1971. 384 p. (In Russ.).
2. Barabanova A.V., Baranov A.E., Bushmanov A.Yu., Guskova A.K. Radiatsionnyye Porazheniya Cheloveka = Human Radiation Damage. Moscow, Slovo Publ., 2007. P. 85-102 (In Russ.).
3. Okladnikova N.D. Chronic Human Radiation Sickness Caused by External or Mainly External Gamma Radiation. Radiatsionnaya Meditsina = Radiation Medicine. Moscow Publ., 2001. V.2. P. 253-274 (In Russ.).
4. Akleyev A.V. Khronicheskiy Luchevoy Sindrom u Zhiteley Pribrezhnykh Sel Reki Techa = Chronic Radiation Syndrome in Residents of Coastal Villages of the Techa River. Chelyabinsk, Kniga Publ., 2012. 464 p. (In Russ.).
5. Baysogolov G.D. Some Questions of the Pathogenesis of Changes in the Blood System During Various Periods of Chronic Radiation Sickness. Radiatsiya i Risk = Radiation and Risk. 2000;Special issue:34-42 (In Russ.).
6. Kurshakov N.A., Kirillov S.A. Chronic Radiation Sickness as a Consequence of External Irradiation. V.2. Izbrannyye Materialy Radiatsionnoy Meditsiny = Selected Materials of Radiation Medicine. Moscow Publ., 2016. P. 215-230 (In Russ.).
7. Vyalova N.A., Suvorova L.A., Gavrilova K.P., Shalaginov V.A., et al. The Results of the Study of the Dependence of Hematological Changes in the Long-Term Period of Chronic Radiation Sickness on the Dose of External Gamma Irradiation and Incorporation of Plutonium – 239. V. 1. Izbrannyye Materialy Byulletenya radiatsionnoy Meditsiny = Selected Materials of the Bulletin of Radiation Medicine. Moscow, A.I. Burnazyana FMBC Publ., 2016. P. 388-397 (In Russ.).
8. Guskova A.K., Akleyev A.V., Koshurnikova N.A. Pervyye Shagi v Budushcheye Vmeste: Atomnaya Promyshlennost I meditsina na Yuzhnom Urale = The First Steps into the Future Together: Nuclear Industry and Medicine in the Southern Urals. Moscow Publ., 2009. 183 p. (In Russ.).
9. Baysogolov G.D., Doshchenko V.N., Yurkov N.N., et al. Late Manifestations of Chronic Radiation Sickness in Humans. Radiatsiya i Risk = Radiation and Risk. 1997;9:107-110
(In Russ.).
10. Pesternikova V.S. The State of Hematopoiesis in Patients with Chronic Radiation Sickness 25-30 Years after the Diagnosis of the Disease. Izbrannyye Materialy Byulletenya radiatsionnoy Meditsiny = Selected Materials of the Bulletin of Radiation Medicine. Moscow, A.I. Burnazyana FMBC Publ., 2016.
P. 436-444 (In Russ.).
11. Egorov A.P. Bochkarev V.V. Krovetvoreniye i Ioniziruyushchaya Radiatsiya = Hematopoiesis and Ionizing Radiation. Moscow, Medgiz Publ., 1954. 259 p. (In Russ.).
12. Sokolov V.V., Gribova I.A. Gematologicheskiye Pokazateli Zdorovogo Cheloveka = Hematological Indicators of a Healthy Person. Moscow, Meditsina Publ., 1972. 104 p. (In Russ.).
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.
Article received: 20.02.2022. Accepted for publication: 27.03.2023.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 4
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-4-28-34
A.V. Khmelev1, 2
Radiation Sources and Doses of PET Center Staff and Patients
1 Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education, Moscow, Russia
2 Federal research Center for Project Evaluation and Consulting Services, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: A.V. Khmelev, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
CONTENTS
Introduction
1. Emissions in cyclotron facility and their influence on staff
2. Radiation sources of radiochemical laboratory and radiation exposure of radiochemists
3. Ionizing radiation sources in PET diagnostics division and doses of medical staff
4. Doses of PET center patients
Conclusion
Keywords: PET center, radiopharmaceuticals, radionuclide, radiation, dose, dose rate, staff, patients
For citation: Khmelev AV. Radiation Sources and Doses of PET Center Staff and Patients. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(4):28–34. (In Russian). DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-4-28-34
References
1 Qaim S.M. Cyclotron Production of Medical Radionuclides. V. 4. Handbook of Nuclear Chemistry. Ed. Vértes A., Nagy S., Klencsár Z. Berlin, Springer, 2011. P. 1903–1933.
2. Miller P.W., Long N.J., Vilar R., Gee A.D. Synthesis of 11C, 18F, 15O and 13N Radiolabels for Positron Emission Tomography. Angew Chem. Int. Ed. Engl. 2008;47:8998-9033. DOI: 10.1002/anie.200800222.
3. Хмелев А.В. Позитронная эмиссионная томография: физико-технические аспекты. М.: Тровант. 2016. 336 с. [Khmelev А.V. Pozitronnaya Emissionnaya Tomografiya: Fiziko-Tekhnicheskiye Aspekty = Positron Emission Tomography: Physical and Technical Aspects. Мoscow, Trovant Publ., 2016. 336 p. (In Russ.)].
4. Abolaban F.A., Alawi M., Taha E., Elmoujarkach E., Banoqitah E., Alhawsawi A., et al. Estimation of Thermal & Epithermal Neutron Flux and Gamma Dose Distribution in a Medical Cyclotron Facility for Radiation Protection Purposes Using Gold Foils and Gate 9. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2021;193;1-2:176–184. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncab034.
5. Donmoon T., Chamroonrat W., Tuntawiroon M. Radiation Exposure to Nuclear Medicine Staffs During 18F-FDG PET/CT Procedures at Ramathibodi Hospital. Journal of Physics. Conference Series. 2016;694:012061. DOI:10.1088/1742-6596/694/1/012061.
6. Lecchi M., Malaspina S., Del Sole A. Effective and Equivalent Dose Minimization for Personnel in PET Procedures: how Far Are we from the Goal? Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2016;43:2279–2282. DOI.org/10.1007/s00259-016-3513-3.
7. Benatar N.A., Cronin B.F., O› Doherty M.J. Radiation Dose Rates from Patients Undergoing PET: Implications for Technologists and Waiting Areas. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 2000;27;5:583–539. DOI: 10.1007/s002590050546.
8. Berberoglua K. External Radiation Exposure Rate after 18F-FDG PET/CT Examination. Radioprotection. 2019;54;2:113–116. DOI.org/10.1051/radiopro/2019010.
9. Hichwa R.D. Production of PET Radioisotopes and Principles of PET Imaging. Chapter 23. Nuclear Medicine. V.1. Ed. Henkin R.E., Bova D., Dillehay C.L., Halama J., Karesh S.M., Wagner R.H., et al. New York, Mosby-York Book, 1996. 1500 p.
10. Radiopharmaceuticals for Positron Emission Tomography: Methodological Aspects. Ed. Stocklin G., Pike V.W. New York, WILEY, 1993. 180 р.
11. Braccini S. Compact Cyclotrons and Their Use for Radioisotope Production and Multi-Disciplinary Research. 21st International Conference on Cyclotrons and Their Applications. Proceedings of Cyclotron 2016, 2016 Sept 11-16, Europe/Zurich. Zurich, Switzerland, 2016. P. 229-234.
12. Gonzales L., Vano E., Cordeiro C.A., Carreras J.L. Preliminary Safety Evaluation of a Cyclotron Facility for Positron Emission Tomography Imaging. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. 1999;26:894–899. DOI: 10.1007/s002590050464.
13. Iwai S., Nobuhara F., Tanaka M., Nagasawa N. Investigation of Activation Range for Self-Shielded PET Cyclotron. Progress in Nuclear Science and Technology. 2019;6:217–220. DOI: 10.15669/pnst.6.217.
14. Paans AMJ. Positron Emission Tomography. Acta. Physica. Polonica. 1999;B 30;5:1619–1628.
15. Fujibuchi T., Horitsugi G., Yamaguchi I., Eto A., Iwamoto Ya., Obara S., et al. Comparison of Neutron Fluxes in an 18-MeV Unshielded Cyclotron Room and a 16.5-MeV Self-Shielded Cyclotron Room. Radiol. Phys. Technol. 2012;5;2:156–165. DOI: 10.1007/s12194-012-0149-2.
16. Biegała M., Jakubowska T. Levels of Exposure to Ionizing Radiation among the Personnel Engaged in Cyclotron Operational and Personnel Engaged in the Production of Radiopharmaceuticals Based on Radiation Monitoring System. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2020;189;1:56–62. DOI:10.1093/rpd/ncaa012.
17. Schober O., Lottes G. Positron Emission Tomography and Radiation Exposure. Nuklearmedizin. 1994;33;5:174–177.
18. Brown T.F., Yasillo N.J. Radiation Safety Consideration for PET Center. J. Nucl. Med. Technol. 1997;25:96–102.
19. Boellaard R., O›Doherty M.J., Weber W.A., Mottaghy F.M., Lonsdale M.N., Stroobants S.G., et al. FDG PET and PET/CT: EANM Procedure Guidelines for Tumour PET Imaging: Version 1.0. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2010;37;1:181–200. DOI: 10.1007/s00259-009-1297-4.
20. Leide-Svegborn S. Radiation Exposure of Patients and Personnel from a PET/CT Procedure with 18F-FDG. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2010;139;1-3: 208–213. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncq026.
21. Anderson J.A. and Mathews D. Site Planning and Radiation Safety in the PET Facility Department of Radiology, the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, TX 75390-9071. URL: https://www.aapm.org.meeting.
22. Radiation Protection in Newer Medical Imaging Techniques: PET/CT. Safety Reports Series. № 58. Vienna, IAEA, 2008.
23. Gunes B.Y., Erez O., Gündoğan C., Ergü N. The Evaluation of External Dose Rate Measurements of Patients During and after F-18 FDG PET/CT Imaging and Appropriate Discharge Time from PET/CT Department. İstanbul Med. J. 2019;20;3:188–192. DOI:10.4274/imj.galenos.2018.85698.
24. Тарутин И.Г., Барановский О.А., Емельяненко Е.В. Аспекты радиационной безопасности ПЭТ-КТ диагностики. Электронный ресурс: https://elib.bsu.by/handle/123456789/171735. [Tarutin I.G., Baranovskiy O.A., Emelyanenko E.V. Radiation Safety Aspects of PET Diagnostics. URL: https://elib.bsu.by/handle/123456789/171735 (In Russ.)].
25. Peet D.J., Hussein M., Alsafi K., Spyrou N. Radiation Protection in Fixed PET/CT Facilities ‒ Design and Operation. Br. J. Radiol. 2012;85;1013:643–646. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/32969351.
26. Seierstad T., Stranden E., Bjering K., Evensen M., Holt A., Michalsen H.M., et al. Doses to Nuclear Technicians in a Dedicated PET/CT Centre Utilizing 18F Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2007;123;2:246–249. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncl141.
27. Linemann H., Will E., Beuthien-Baumann B. Investigations of Radiation Exposure of the Medical Personnel During F-18-FDG PET Studies. Nuklearmedizin. 2000;39;3:77–81.
28. Roberts F.O., Gunawardana D.H., Pathmaraj K., Wallace A., Lu P., Mi T., et al. Radiation Dose to PET Technologists and Strategies to Lower Occupational Exposure. J. Nucl. Med. Technol. 2005;33;1:44–47.
29. Guilett B., Quentin P., Waultier S., Bourrelly M., Pisano P., Mundler O. Technologist Radiation Exposure in Routine Clinical Practice with 18-FDG PET. J. Nucl. Med. Technol. 2005;33:175–179.
30. Alenezi A., Soliman K. Trends in Radiation Protection of Positron Emission Tomography/ Computed Tomography Imaging. ICRP 2013 Proceedings. 2013. P. 259–275.
31. Чипига Л.А., Звонова И.А., Рыжкова Д.В., Меньков М.А., Долгушин М.Б. Уровни облучения пациентов и возможные пути оптимизации ПЭТ-диагностики в России // Радиационная гигиена. 2017. Т.10, № 4. С. 31–43. DOI: 10.21514/1998-426Х-2017-10-4-31-43. [Chipiga L.A., Zvonova I.A., Ryzhkova D.V., Menkov M.A., Dolgushin M.B. Levels of Patient Irradiation and Possible Ways of PET Diagnostics Optimization in Russia. Radiatsionnaya Gigiyena = Radiation Hygiene. 2017;10;4:31–43 (In Russ.)].
32. Khamwan K., Krisanachinda A., Pasawang P. The Determination of Patient Dose from 18F-FDG PET/CT Examination. Radiat. Prot. Dosimetry. 2010;141;1:50–55. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncq140.
33. ICRP Radiation Dose to Patients from Radiopharmaceuticals. Addendum 3 to ICRP Publication 53. ICRP Publication 106. Ann. ICRP. 2008;38;1-2:1–197.
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The author declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The research is performed with the support of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation within State Assignment as of 2023 № 075-01590-23-00-22-00 and prospected period as of 2024‒2025.
Contribution. Article was prepared with one participation of the authors.
Article received: 20.02.2022. Accepted for publication: 27.03.2023.
Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023. Vol. 68. № 4
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-4-43-50
A.N. Koterov, L.N. Ushenkova, M.V. Kalinina, A.P. Biryukov
The ‘Healthy Worker Effect’ on Indexes of Total Mortality
and Malignant Neoplasms Mortality for Nuclear and Chemical Workers: Meta-Analysis
A.I. Burnazyan Federal Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow, Russia
Contact person: Alexey N. Koterov, e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Abstract
A meta-analysis of studies of the ‘Standardized mortality ratio’ (SMR, in % compared with the general population) indexes of overall mortality and mortality from all malignant neoplasms for nuclear workers (NW) from 15 countries (for 2007), as well as for workers dealing with the most toxic heavy metals (Hg, Cd, Pb, Cu) and beta-naphthylamine (a carcinogenic antioxidant previously used in the manufacture of paints) was carried out. For NW, a ‘Healthy worker effect’ (HWE) was found for both indexes (SMR = 62 (95 % CI: 56; 69) and 74 (95 % CI: 69; 78), respectively). The obtained SMR values for NW were compared with data for other professional groups (the results of meta-analyses and individual studies with maximum and minimum SMR values: from cosmonauts/astronauts, pilots and athletes, to work with chemical compounds in general or with their individual types (solvents, heavy metals, beta-naphthylamine), as well as with asbestos. It was found that the level of HWE for NW is comparable to that for one group of athletes and is significantly (1.30–1.45 times) higher than for chemical production personnel, although the combined data for NW is not final.
For workers in the chemical industry as a whole, according to published meta-analyses, HWE was also found in SMR, but weak: the value for total mortality was 90 (95 % CI: 87; 92). At the same time, mortality from all malignant neoplasms compared with the population did not reveal a clear HWE, but was not increased either. The most harmful types of employment are, on the rise, work with heavy metals, in coal mines, with beta-naphthylamine and with asbestos.
The data obtained eliminates the prevailing stereotypes and can improve the image of employment in the nuclear and chemical industries in general.
Keywords: standardized mortality ratio, healthy worker effect, nuclear industry, chemical industry, heavy metals, beta-naphthylamine, meta-analysis
For citation: Koterov AN, Ushenkova LN, Kalinina MV, Biryukov AP. The ‘Healthy Worker Effect’ on Indexes of Total Mortality and Malignant Neoplasms Mortality for Nuclear and Chemical Workers: Meta-Analysis. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2023;68(4):43–50. (In Russian). DOI:10.33266/1024-6177-2023-68-4-43-50
References
1. Monson R.R. Observations on the Healthy Worker Effect. J. Occup. Med. 1986;28;6:425–433. https://doi.org/10.1097/00043764-198606000-00009.
2. Ogle W. Letter to the Registrar-General on the Mortality in the Registration Districts of England and Wales During the Ten Years 1871–80. Supplement to the 45th Annual Report of the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, in England. London, 1885. P. 23.
3. McMichael A.J., Spirtas R., Kupper L.L. An Epidemiologic Study of Mortality Within a Cohort of Rubber Workers, 1964–72. J. Occup. Med. 1974;16;7:458–464.
4. Trubetskov A.D., Zhirov K.S. ‘The Effect of Healthy Worker’ in Various Areas of Occupational Medicine: the Publications Review. Problemy Sotsialnoy Gigiyeny, Zdravookhraneniya i Istorii Meditsiny = Problems of Social Hygiene, Public Health and History of Medicine. 2021;29;2:254–259. https://doi.org/10.32687/0869-866X-2021-29-2-254-259 (In Russ.).
5. Demographic and Social Statistics T.5. Entsiklopediya statisticheskikh terminov. V 8-mi t. = Encyclopedia of Statistical Terms. In 8 Volumes. Moscow Publ., 2011. 482 p. (In Russ.).
6. Samorodskaya I.V., Semenov V.Yu. Malignant Neoplasms Mortality Rates in Moscow and Saint Petersburg in 2015 and 2018. Sovremennaya Onkologiya = Journal of Modern Oncology. 2020;22;3:79–84. https://doi.org/10.26442/18151434.2020.3.200192 (In Russ.).
7. Drapkina O.M., Samorodskaya I.V., Bolotova E.V., Dudnikova A.V. Analysis of the Dynamics of Mortality from Respiratory Diseases in the Russian Federation for 2019–2020. Terapevticheskiy Arkhiv = Therapeutic Archive. 2022;94;3:401–408. https://doi.org/10.26442/00403660.2022.03.201403 (In Russ.).
8. Tikhonova G.I., Piktushanskaya T.E., Gorchakova T.Yu., Churanova A.N., Bryleva M.S. Influence of Duration and Intensity of Exposure to Occupational Hazards on Mortality Levels of Coal Miners. Meditsina Truda i Promyshlennaya Ekologiya = Russian Journal of Occupational Health and Industrial Ecology. 2018;7:16–21. https://doi.org/10.31089/1026-9428-2021-61-9-580-587
(In Russ.).
9. Mastrangelo G., Marzia V., Marcer G. Reduced Lung Cancer Mortality in Dairy Farmers: is Endotoxin Exposure the Key Factor? Am. J. Ind. Med. 1996;30;5:601–609. https://doi.org/110.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199611)30:5<601::AID-AJIM8>
3.0.CO;2-V.
10. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. Ed. Last J.M. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001.
11. Vlasov V.V. Epidemiologiya = Epidemiology. Textbook. Moscow, GEOTAR-Media Publ., 2006. 464 p. (In Russ.).
12. Guidelines for the Development of Regional Demographic Development Programs. Moscow Publ., 2012. 50 p. (In Russ.).
13. Fox A.J., Collier P.F. Low Mortality Rates in Industrial Cohort Studies Due to Selection for Work and Survival in the Industry. Br. J. Prev. Soc. Med. 1976;30;4:225–230. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.30.4.225.
14. Wen C.P., Tsai S.P., Gibson R.L. Anatomy of the Healthy Worker Effect: a Critical Review. J. Occup. Med. 1983;25;4:283–289.
15. Sheikh K. A Review of the Healthy Worker Effect in Occupational Epidemiology. Occup. Med. (Lond). 2000;50;2:146. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/50.2.146.
16. Roessler M. Can We Trust the Standardized Mortality Ratio? A Formal Analysis and Evaluation Based on Axiomatic Requirements. PLoS One. 2021;16;9:e0257003. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257003.
17. Gaffey W.R. A Critique of the Standardized Mortality Ratio. J. Occup. Med. 1976;18;3:157–160. https://doi.org/10.1097/00043764-197603000-00007.
18. Monson R.R. Observations on the Healthy Worker Effect. J. Occup. Med. 1986;28;6:425–433. https://doi.org/10.1097/00043764-198606000-00009.
19. Guidotti T.L. The Handbook of Occupational and Environmental Medicine: Principles, Practice, and Problem-Solving. In 2 Volumes. Praeger-ABC-CLIO, LLC. 2020. 1212 p.
20. Metz-Flamant C., Rogel A., Caer S., Samson E., Laurier D., Acker A., Tirmarche M. Mortality among Workers Monitored for Radiation Exposure at the French Nuclear Fuel Company. Arch. Environ Occup. Health. 2009;64;4:242–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/19338240903348246.
21. Bond G.G., Bodner K.M., Olsen G.W., Cook R.R. Mortality among Workers Engaged in the Development or Manufacture of Styrene-Based Products: an Update. Scand J. Work Environ Health. 1992;18;3:145–154. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1594.
22. Beckman I.N. Yadernaya Industriya = Nuclear Industry. Lecture Course. Moscow Publ., 2005. 867 p. (In Russ.).
23. Kirkeleit J., Riise T., Bjorge T., Christiani D.C. The Healthy Worker Effect in Cancer Incidence Studies. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2013;177;11:1218–1224. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kws373.
24. Breslow N.E., Day N.E. Statistical Methods in Cancer Research. V.II. The Design and Analysis of Cohort Studies. Lyon, World Health Organization, 1987. P. 17–20.
25. Carpenter L.M. Some Observations on the Healthy Worker Effect. Br. J. Ind. Med. 1987;44;5:289–291. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.44.5.289.
26. Li C.Y., Sung F.C. A Review of the Healthy Worker Effect in Occupational Epidemiology. Occup. Med. (Lond). 1999;49;4:225–229. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/49.4.225.
27. Koshurnikova N.A., Buldakov L.A., Bysogolov G.D., Bolotnikova M.G., Komleva N.S., Peternikova V.S. Mortality from Malignancies of the Hematopoietic and Lymphatic Tissues among Personnel of the First Nuclear Plant in the USSR. Sci. Total. Environ. 1994;142;1–2:19–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(94)90068-x.
28. Koshurnikova N.A., Bolotnikova M.G., Gruzdeva E.A., Kabirova N.R., Kreslov V.V., Okatenko P.V., et al. Late Effects of Occupational Radiation Exposure (Mortality in Personnel of ‘Mayak’ Complex for 45 Years of Follow-Up). Radiatsiya i Risk = Radiation and Risk. 1995;5:137–44 (In Russ.).
29. Koshurnikova N.A., Bysogolov G.D., Bolotnikova M.G., Khokhryakov V.F., Kreslov V.V., Okatenko P.V. et al. Mortality among Personnel who Worked at the Mayak Complex in the First Years of Its Operation. Health Phys. 1996;71;1:90–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004032-199607000-00015.
30. Koshurnikova N.A., Okatenko P.V., Sokolnikov M.E., Vasilenko E.K., Khokhryakov V.V. Medical Consequences of the Professional Exposure: Carcinogenic Risk in the Cohort of ‘Mayak’ PA Workers. Medits. Meditsinskaya Radiologiya i Radiatsionnaya Bezopasnost = Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2008;53;3:23–33 (In Russ.).
31. Azizova T.V., Batistatou E., Grigorieva E.S., et al. An Assessment of Radiation-Associated Risks of Mortality from Circulatory Disease in the Cohorts of Mayak and Sellafield Nuclear Workers. Radiat. Res. 2018;189;4:371–388. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR14468.1.
32. Greenberg R.S., Mandel J.S., Pastides H., Britton N.L., Rudenko L., Starr T.B. A Meta-Analysis of Cohort Studies Describing Mortality and Cancer Incidence among Chemical Workers in the United States and Western Europe. Epidemiology. 2001;12;6:727–740. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-200111000-00023.
33. Chen R., Seaton A. A Meta-Analysis of Mortality among Workers Exposed to Organic Solvents. Occup. Med. 1996;46:337–344. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/46.5.337.
34. Rothman K.J. Cancer Occurrence among Workers Exposed to Acrylonitrile. Scand. J. Work Environ Health. 1994;20;5:313–321. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.1391.
35. Alder N., Fenty J., Warren F., et al. Meta-Analysis of Mortality and Cancer Incidence among Workers in the Synthetic Rubber-Producing Industry. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2006;164;5:405–420. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwj252.
36. Morfeld P., Mundt K.A., Dell L.D., Sorahan T., McCunney R.J. Meta-Analysis of Cardiac Mortality in Three Cohorts of Carbon Black Production Workers. Int. J. Environ Res. Public. Health. 2016;13;3:302. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13030302.
37. Vrijheid M., Cardis E., Blettner M., Gilbert E., Hakama M., Hill C., et al. The 15-Country Collaborative Study of Cancer Risk Among Radiation Workers in the Nuclear Industry: Design, Epidemiological Methods and Descriptive Results. Radiat. Res. 2007;167;4:361–379. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR0554.1.
38. Cassidy L.D., Youk A.O., Marsh G.M. The Drake Health Registry Study: Cause-Specific Mortality Experience of Workers Potentially Exposed to Beta-Naphthylamine. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2003;44;3:282–290. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.10268.
39. Higgins J.P., Thompson S.G., Deeks J.J., Altman D.G. Measuring Inconsistency in Meta-Analyses. Brit. Med. J. 2003;327;7414:557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
40. Blettner M., Sauerbrei W., Schlehofer B., Scheuchenpflug T., Friedenreich C. Traditional Reviews, Meta-Analyses and Pooled Analyses in Epidemiology. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1999;28;1:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/28.1.1.
41. Sterne J.A., Egger M., Smith G.D. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Investigating and Dealing with Publication and Other Biases in Meta-Analysis. Br. Med. J. 2001;323;7304:101–105. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101.
42. Axelson O. Negative and Non-Positive Epidemiological Studies. Int. J. Occup. Med. Environ. Health. 2004;17;1:115–121.
43. Gerosa A., Ietri E., Belli S., Grignoli M., Comba P. High Risk of Pleural Mesothelioma among the State Railroad Carriage Repair Workers. Epidemiol. Prev. 2000;24;3:117–119 (In Italian.).
44. Miller B.G., MacCalman L. Cause-Specific Mortality in British Coal Workers and Exposure to Respirable Dust and Quartz. Occup. Environ. Med. 2010;67;4:270–276. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2009.046151.
45. Nakashima E., Neriishi K., Minamoto A. A Reanalysis of Atomic-Bomb Cataract Data, 2000–2002: a Threshold Analysis. Health Phys. 2006;90;2:154–160. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.hp.0000175442.03596.63.
46. Neriishi K., Nakashima E., Minamoto A., Fujiwara S., Akahoshi M., Mishima H.K., et al. Postoperative Cataract Cases among Atomic Bomb Survivors: Radiation Dose Response and Threshold. Radiat. Res. 2007;168;4:404–408. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR0928.1.
47. Juel K. High Mortality in the Thule Cohort: an Unhealthy Worker Effect. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1994;23;6:1174–1178. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/23.6.1174.
48. Ushakov I.B., Voronkov Y.I., Bukhtiyarov I.V. Tikhonova G.I., Gorchakova T.Yu., Bryleva M.S. A Cohort Mortality Study among Soviet and Russian Cosmonauts, 1961–2014. Aerosp. Med. Hum. Perform. 2017;88;12:1060–1065. https://doi.org/10.3357/AMHP.4701.2017.
49. Reynolds R.J., Day S.M. Mortality of US Astronauts: Comparisons with Professional Athletes. Occup. Environ. Med. 2019;76;2:114–117. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2018-105304.
50. Gajewski A.K., Poznanska A. Mortality of Top Athletes, Actors and Clergy in Poland: 1924-2000 Follow-Up Study of the Long Term Effect of Physical Activity. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2008;23;5:335–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-008-9237-3.
51. Hammer G.P., Auvinen A., De Stavola B.L., Grajewski B., Gundestrup M., Haldorsen T., et al. Mortality from Cancer and Other Causes in Commercial Airline Crews: a Joint Analysis of Cohorts from 10 Countries. Occup. Environ. Med. 2014;71;5:313–322. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2013-101395.
52. McLaughlin R., Nielsen L., Waller M. An Evaluation of the Effect of Military Service on Mortality: Quantifying the Healthy Soldier Effect. Ann. Epidemiol. 2008;18;12:928–936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.09.002.
53. Alif S.M., Sim M.R., Ho C., Glass D.C. Cancer and Mortality in Coal Mine Workers: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Occup. Environ. Med. 2022;79;5:347–357. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2021-107498.
54. Luberto F., Ferrante D., Silvestri S., Angelini A., Cuccaro F., Nannavecchia A.M., et al. Cumulative Asbestos Exposure and Mortality from Asbestos Related Diseases in a Pooled Analysis of 21 Asbestos Cement Cohorts in Italy. Environ Health. 2019;18;1:71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-019-0510-6.
55. Piolatto G., Negri E., La Vecchia C., Pira E., Decarli A., Peto J. An Update of Cancer Mortality among Chrysotile Asbestos Miners in Balangero, Northern Italy. Br. J. Ind. Med. 1990;47;12:810–814. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.47.12.810.
56. Dement J.M., Harris R.L.Jr., Symons M.J., Shy C.M. Exposures and Mortality among Chrysotile Asbestos Workers. Part II: Mortality. Am. J. Ind. Med. 1983;4;3:421–433. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.4700040304.
57. Duffus J.H. ‘Heavy Metals’— a Meaningless Term? Pure and Applied Chemistry. 2002:74;5:793–807. http://dx.doi.org/10.1351/pac200274050793.
58. Srivastava N.K., Majumder C.B. Novel Biofiltration Methods for the Treatment of Heavy Metals from Industrial Wastewater. J. Hazard Mater. 2008;151;1:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.09.101.
59. Koterov A.N., Ushenkova L.N., Kalinina M.V., Biryukov A.P. Brief Review of World Researches of Radiation and Non-Radiation Effects in Nuclear Industry Workers. Mediko-Biologicheskiye Problemy Zhiznedeyatelnosti = Medical and Biological Problems of Life Activity. 2020;1:17–31 (In Russ.).
60. Skriver M.V., Vaeth M., Stovring H. Loss of Life Expectancy Derived from a Standardized Mortality Ratio in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Scand. J. Public Health. 2018;46;7:767–773. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494817749050.
61. Tsai S.P., Hardy R.J., Wen C.P. The Standardized Mortality Ratio and Life Expectancy. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1992;135;7:824–831. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116369.
62. Lai D., Guo F., Hardy R.J. Standardized Mortality Ratio and Life Expectancy: a Comparative Study of Chinese Mortality. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2000;29;5:852–855. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/29.5.852.
63. DeVivo M.J, Savic G., Frankel H.L., Jamous M.A., Soni B.M., Charlifue S., et al. Comparison of Statistical Methods for Calculating Life Expectancy after Spinal Cord Injury. Spinal Cord. 2018;56;7:666–673. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-018-0067-1.
64. Lutz W., Striessnig E., Dimitrova A., Ghislandi S., Lijadi A., Reiter C., et al. Years of Good Life Is a Well-Being Indicator Designed to Serve Research on Sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2021;118;12:e1907351118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1907351118.
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The study had no sponsorship.
Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.
Article received: 20.02.2022. Accepted for publication: 27.03.2023.