Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30194554›Full record

ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2018

Quality Control of Radiation Delivery for Lower Gastrointestinal Cancers.

Supriya Jain, Karyn A Goodman

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Supriya JainDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 1665 Aurora Court, Suite 1032 MS F706, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA.
Karyn A GoodmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Colorado Cancer Center, University of Colorado School of Medicine, 1665 Aurora Court, Suite 1032 MS F706, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. karyn.goodman@ucdenver.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

opinion statementAssessing the quality of health care delivered is a priority across medical specialties, but it is particularly critical for radiation oncology, a field with rapid introduction of new technologies and treatment paradigms. Deviation from acceptable standards can lead to delivery of inferior therapies and medical errors that can directly compromise patient clinical outcome, thus leading to disparities in quality of care. Professional oncologic specialty societies often take ownership of standardizing best practices by issuing evidence-based disease-specific consensus guidelines. They also inform quality indicators that are set as requirements for accreditation, maintenance of certification, and reimbursement. Cooperative groups also create benchmarks for quality radiation therapy through design of clinical protocols that set standard-of-care treatment practices. Pelvic radiotherapy for colorectal and anal cancers has undergone a significant transformation in radiation planning and delivery including increased complexity in contour segmentation with a transition from three-dimensional to intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Compliance with quality metrics proposed in national consensus guidelines and participation in clinical trials help keep practicing radiation oncologists up-to-date with advances in our field and well-trained to provide safe and effective high-value care.

Indexed as

Anus NeoplasmsColonic NeoplasmsHumansPelvisQuality ControlRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy, Intensity-ModulatedRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-AssistedAnalClinical trialsLower gastrointestinal cancerOncology care pathwaysPeer reviewQuality metricsRadiation therapyRectalStandardization

Identifiers

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.