Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29557215›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2019

The evolution of practical radiobiological modelling.

B Jones, R G Dale

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A novel, multi-active emollient for the prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients: a randomized clinical trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. The many faces of mathematical modelling in oncology.The British journal of radiology · 2019
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

2 authors.

B JonesDepartment of Oncology, CRUK-MRC Oxford Centre, Gray Laboratory, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
R G DaleFaculty of Medicine, Imperial College, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A summary of the key aspects of radiobiological modelling is provided, based on the theoretical and practical concepts of the linear quadratic model, which gradually replaced other numerical approaches. The closely related biological effective dose concept is useful in many clinical applications. Biological effective dose formulations in conventional photon-based radiotherapy continue to be developed, and can be extended to the now increasingly used proton and ion-beam therapy, to very low or high dose ranges, the dose rate effect, hypoxia and repopulation. Such established and new research developments will be of interest to clinicians, physicists and biologists to better understand the processes underlying radiotherapy and assist their collaborative efforts to make radiotherapy safer and more effective.

Indexed as

Radiation ToleranceRelative Biological EffectivenessDose-Response Relationship, RadiationForecastingHumansModels, BiologicalPatient SafetyProton TherapyRadiation InjuriesRadiobiologyRadiotherapy Dosage

Identifiers

PMID29557215
PMCPMC6435084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.