Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30038646›Full record

ReviewJournal of contemporary brachytherapy2018

A national survey of AIRO (Italian Association of Radiation Oncology) brachytherapy (Interventional Radiotherapy) study group.

Rosa Autorino, Lisa Vicenzi, Luca Tagliaferri, Carlo Soatti, Prof Gyeorgy Kovacs, Cynthia Aristei

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of contemporary brachytherapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Can interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy) be an alternative to surgery in early-stage oral cavity cancer? A systematic review.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Patterns of care for brachytherapy in Japan.Journal of radiation research · 2024
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. 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

6 authors.

Rosa AutorinoFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Dipartimento Scienze Radiologiche, Radioterapiche ed Ematologiche, Roma, Italy.
Lisa VicenziDepartment of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona, Italy.
Luca TagliaferriFondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Dipartimento Scienze Radiologiche, Radioterapiche ed Ematologiche, Roma, Italy.
Carlo SoattiDepartment of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Azienda Ospedaliero Lecco, Italy.
Prof Gyeorgy KovacsInterdisciplinary Brachytherapy Unit, University of Lübeck - University Hospital S-H, Campus Lübeck, Germany.
Cynthia AristeiDepartment of Surgery and Biomedical Science, Section of Radiation Oncology, University of Perugia and Perugia General Hospital, Perugia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo review brachytherapy resources and to explore current practice patterns in Italy. MATERIAL AND

methodsIn 2016, on behalf of the Italian Association of Radiation Oncology (AIRO), the Brachytherapy Study Group proposed conducting a survey in order to identify brachytherapy practice patterns. An electronic questionnaire was sent to all radiotherapy centres in Italy, asking for: 1. General information on the Radiation Oncology Centre (affiliation, whether brachytherapy was delivered or not); 2. Brachytherapy equipment and human resources; 3. Brachytherapy procedures; 4. Brachytherapy assessment (number of patients treated annually, treated sites, and different modalities of treatments).

resultsA total of 66 questionnaires were returned (33.5% of all brachytherapy centers in Italy), out of which 48 (74%) from non-academic hospitals, 6 (10%) from academic hospitals, and 12 (16%) from private institutions. Most centers (84%) had only one brachytherapy machine; 44% did not deliver brachytherapy treatments or delivered less than demanded because of the lack of staff or expertise, need of modernization, or other reasons. The majority of treatments were administered to outpatients for gynecological tumors.

conclusionsThis survey illustrates the current status of brachytherapy in Italy and should encourage collaboration to develop, implement, and monitor its use when appropriate.

Indexed as

AIRO (Italian Association of Radiation Oncology) brachytherapysurvey

Identifiers

PMID30038646
PMCPMC6052379

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.