ArticleInternational journal of clinical oncology2013
Japanese structure survey of radiation oncology in 2009 with special reference to designated cancer care hospitals.
Article in International journal of clinical oncology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- A national survey on the medical physics workload of external beam radiotherapy in Japan†.Journal of radiation research · 2023Article
- Japanese structure survey of radiation oncology in 2015.Journal of radiation research · 2022Article
- Japanese structure survey of radiation oncology in 2013.Journal of radiation research · 2020Article
- Current status and comparison of national health insurance systems for advanced radiation technologies in Korea and Japan.Radiation oncology journal · 2020Article
- Japanese structure survey of radiation oncology in 2012.Journal of radiation research · 2020Article
- Japanese Structure Survey of Radiation Oncology in 2011.Journal of radiation research · 2019Article
- Japanese structure survey of radiation oncology in 2010.Journal of radiation research · 2019Article
- Educational outcomes of a medical physicist program over the past 10 years in Japan.Journal of radiation research · 2017Article
- Practice patterns of radiation therapy technology in Australia: results of a national audit.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2015Article
- Reasons for discontinuation of radiation therapy and effective countermeasures.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe structure of radiation oncology in designated cancer care hospitals in Japan was surveyed in terms of equipment, personnel, patient load, and geographic distribution, and compared with the structure in other radiotherapy facilities and the previous survey.
methodsThe Japanese Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology surveyed the national structure of radiation oncology in 2009. The structures of 365 designated cancer care hospitals and 335 other radiotherapy facilities were compared.
resultsDesignated cancer care hospitals accounted for 50.0% of all the radiotherapy facilities in Japan. The patterns of equipment and personnel in designated cancer care hospitals and the other radiotherapy facilities were, respectively, as follows: linear accelerators per facility: 1.4 and 1.0; dual-energy function: 78.6 and 61.3%; three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy function: 88.5 and 70.0%; intensity-modulated radiotherapy function: 51.6 and 25.3%; annual number of patients per linear accelerator: 301.3 and 185.2; Ir-192 remote-controlled after-loading systems: 31.8 and 4.2%; and average number of full-time equivalent radiation oncologists per facility: 1.8 and 0.8. Compared with the previous survey, the ownership ratio of equipment and personnel improved in both designated cancer care hospitals and the other radiotherapy facilities. Annual patient loads per full-time equivalent radiation oncologist in the designated cancer care hospitals and the other radiotherapy facilities were 225.5 and 247.6, respectively. These values exceeded the standard guidelines level of 200.
conclusionsThe structure of radiation oncology in designated Japanese cancer care hospitals was more mature than that in the other radiotherapy facilities. There is still a shortage of personnel. The serious understaffing problem in radiation oncology should be corrected in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23053398What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.