Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29859794›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2018

Introductory Radiation Oncology Curriculum: Report of a National Needs Assessment and Multi-institutional Pilot Implementation.

Jillian R Gunther, Rachel B Jimenez, Raphael L Yechieli, Akash Parekh, Abigail T Berman, Steve E Braunstein, Ariel E Hirsch, Erin F Gillespie, Neha Vapiwala, Charles R Thomas and 2 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. ONC-Call: A Hands-On Workshop of Emergent Spine Radiation Therapy for Multidisciplinary Trainees.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group Annual Spring Symposium: Initial Impact and Feedback.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Jillian R GuntherDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Rachel B JimenezDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Raphael L YechieliDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
Akash ParekhDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Florida.
Abigail T BermanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Steve E BraunsteinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, California.
Ariel E HirschDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts.
Erin F GillespieDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York.
Neha VapiwalaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Charles R ThomasDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Emma C FieldsDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia.
Daniel W GoldenDepartment of Radiation and Cellular Oncology, University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. Electronic address: dgolden@radonc.uchicago.edu.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Elisa de Stanchina · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Re-Engineering Translational Research at the University of ChicagoUL1TR000430 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI SOLWAY, JULIAN · 2012 to 2016
$20.2M
Center for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR000058 · NCATS · VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY · PI MOELLER, FREDERICK GERARD · 2012 to 2015
$12.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000058NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000430NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the optimal structure of an introductory curriculum (IC) for radiation oncology residents, including the perceived utility of a 2-day off-site "boot camp," and evaluate the success of a pilot introductory radiation oncology curriculum (IROC) based on these initial data. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In the first phase, anonymous, web-based surveys were sent to US radiation oncology program directors and residents. Likert-type scores (1, not at all; 5, extremely) are reported as the median and interquartile range. Using the phase 1 results, IROC was developed, piloted, and evaluated.

resultsOf the 89 program directors and 697 residents, 47 (53%) and 165 (24%) responded, respectively. Of the 89 program directors, 37 (79%) reported offering a formal IC. However, only 83 residents (50%) reported having a formal IC. Program directors reported resident preparation for clinical training as "moderate" (median 3, interquartile range 2-3) on entering residency and "moderate" (median 3, interquartile range 3-4) after IC completion (P = .03). However, residents only believed they were "slightly" prepared (median 2, interquartile range 1-2) on entering residency and "moderately" (median 3, interquartile range 2-3) prepared after IC completion (P < .01). Program directors believed an off-site boot camp would be of "moderate" utility (median 3, interquartile range 3-4) with participation limited by funding (57%). Residents without an IC reported that having an IC would be "quite" beneficial (median 4, interquartile range 3-5). Residents preferred instruction before the clinical training (49%) and over 1 week (40%). Both program directors and residents rated lectures on radiation emergencies and simulation highly. Using these data, IROC was developed and piloted with incoming residents at 4 institutions. After IROC, residents reported improvement in overall preparedness for clinical training (before: median 1, interquartile range 1-2; vs after: median 3, interquartile range 2-3; P < .01) and among specific practice domains.

conclusionsBeginning radiation oncology residents frequently lack structured introductory curricula but desire instruction before the clinical training with a focus on practical aspects (emergency management, contouring). Program directors recognize the value of both off-site and on-site boot camps. An on-site IC could mitigate funding barriers. A standardized IC, IROC, piloted at 4 programs, showed promising outcomes.

Indexed as

CurriculumEducation, Medical, GraduateNeeds AssessmentClinical CompetenceHumansInternetInternship and ResidencyPilot ProjectsProgram EvaluationRadiation OncologySurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID29859794
PMCPMC6553473

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.