ArticleThe British journal of radiology2016
What is the degree of innovation routinely implemented in Dutch radiotherapy centres? A multicentre cross-sectional study.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The barriers and facilitators of radical innovation implementation in secondary healthcare: a systematic review.Journal of health organization and management · 2021Pooled it
- What is the impact of innovation on output in healthcare with a special focus on treatment innovations in radiotherapy? A literature review.The British journal of radiology · 2017Pooled it
- Toward a human-centric co-design methodology for AI detection of differences between planned and delivered dose in radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Factors predicting timely implementation of radiotherapy innovations: the first model.The British journal of radiology · 2021Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo study the implementation of innovation activities in Dutch radiotherapy (RT) centres in a broad sense (product, technological, market and organizational innovations).
methodsA descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted in 15 Dutch RT centres. A list of innovations implemented from 2011 to 2013 was drawn up for each centre using semi-structured interviews. These innovations were classified into innovation categories according to previously defined innovation indicators. Where applicable, each innovation was rated by each centre on the effort required to implement it and on its expected effects, to get an impression of how far reaching and radical the innovations were and to be able to compare the number of innovations between centres.
resultsThe participating RT centres in the Netherlands implemented 12 innovations per year on average (range 5-25); this number was not significantly different for academic (n = 13) or non-academic centres (n = 10). Several centres were dealing with the same innovations at the same time. The average required effort and expected output did not differ significantly between product, technological and organizational innovation or between academic and non-academic centres.
conclusionThe number of innovations observed per centre varied across a large range, with a large overlap in terms of the type of innovations that were implemented. Registering innovations using the innovation indicators applied in our study would make it possible to improve collaboration between centres, e.g. with common training modules, to avoid duplication of work. Advances in knowledge: This study is the first of its kind investigating innovation implementation in RT in a broad sense.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.