Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27929498›Full record

SynthesisJournal of applied clinical medical physics2016

Dosimetric comparison of intensity-modulated radiotherapy and volumetric-modulated arc radiotherapy in patients with prostate cancer: a meta-analysis.

Wenting Ren, Chao Sun, Ningning Lu, Yingjie Xu, Fei Han, Yue Ping Liu, Jianrong Dai

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Fecal incontinence after moderately hypofractionated volumetric modulated arc therapy for prostate cancer: incidence and impact on quality of life.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2025
    Observational
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. A comparison of a moderately hypofractionated IMRT planning technique used in a randomised UK external beam radiotherapy trial with an in-house technique for localised prostate cancer.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wenting RenCancer Hospital, National Cancer Center, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College. rwt199@gmail.com.
Chao Sun
Ningning Lu
Yingjie Xu
Fei Han
Yue Ping Liu
Jianrong Dai
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) are two main radiotherapy techniques. The aim of this study is to explore which is the preferred technique in prostate treatment through the related publica-tions and meta-analysis. Two authors independently identified all relevant articles available regarding eligibility criteria on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until December 2015. Publication bias was evaluated with funnel plot, and statistical analyses were performed with Stata software. P < 0.05 was thought statistically significant. Ten studies comprised a total of 110 patients; in total 110 IMRT plans and 110 VMAT plans that were included in this study. V40, V60, and V70 of rectum were significantly decreased in VMAT than in IMRT. However, V50 of rectum and V40, V50, V60, V70 of bladder had no statistical differences between IMRI and VMAT plans. Compared with IMRT, the treatment time and MUs of VMAT were significantly lower. VMAT protects rectum better than IMRT and improves the delivery efficiency. VMAT may be the preferred modality for treating prostate cancer.

Indexed as

HumansMaleOrgans at RiskProstatic NeoplasmsRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID27929498
PMCPMC5690508
OpenAlexW2553313668

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.