ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2014
The QUIRO Study (assurance of quality and innovation in radiooncology): methodology, instruments and practices.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The use of IMRT in Germany.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2015Article
- Evaluation of the time required for overhead tasks performed by physicians, medical physicists, and technicians in radiation oncology institutions: the DEGRO-QUIRO study.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe QUIRO study aimed to establish a secure level of quality and innovation in radiation oncology. Over 6 years, 27 specific surveys were conducted at 24 radiooncological departments. In all, 36 renowned experts from the field of radiation oncology (mostly head physicians and full professors) supported the realization of the study.
methodsA salient feature of the chosen methodological approach is the "process" as a means of systematizing diversified medical-technical procedures according to standardized criteria. On the one hand, "processes" as a tool of translation are adapted for creating and transforming standards into concrete clinical and medical actions; on the other hand, they provide the basis for standardized instruments and methods to determine the required needs of physicians, staff, and equipment. In the foreground of the collection and measurement of resource requirements were the processes of direct service provision which were subdivided into modules for reasons of clarity and comprehensibility. Overhead tasks (i.e., participation in quality management) were excluded from the main study and examined in a separate survey with appropriate methods.
resultsAfter the exploration of guidelines, tumor- or indication-specific examination and treatment processes were developed in expert workshops. Moreover, those specific modules were defined which characterize these entities and indications in a special degree. Afterwards, these modules were compiled according to their time and resources required in the "reference institution", i.e., in specialized and as competent recognized departments (mostly from the university area), by various suitable survey methods.
conclusionThe significance of the QUIRO study and the validity of the results were optimized in a process of constant improvements and comprehensive checks. As a consequence, the QUIRO study yields representative results concerning the resource requirement for specialized, qualitatively and technologically highly sophisticated radiooncologic treatment in Germany.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24408057What 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.