SynthesisMedicine2019
Quality of reporting on thoracic radiotherapy technique in prospective lung cancer trials: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study is to assess the quality of reporting of thoracic (T) RT technique for curative intent treatment in prospective lung cancer trials.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE for eligible trials published from 1996 to 2016. We assessed the included trials' reports on whether they reported the RT dose prescription method; RT dose-planning procedures; algorithm for tissue inhomogeneity dose corrections; organs at risk dose constraints; target volume definition, simulation and/or motion management procedures; treatment verification procedures; total RT dose; fractionation schedule; conduct of quality assurance as well as presence or absence of deviations in RT treatment planning and delivery adequately. We performed univariable and multivariable logistic regression to determine the factors that may influence the quality of reporting.
resultsWe found 85 eligible trial reports. Target volume definition, total RT dose, and fractionation schedules were reported adequately in more than 90% of the included trials. Algorithm for tissue inhomogeneity dose corrections, simulation and verification procedures, presence or absence of deviations in RT treatment planning and delivery were reported adequately in less than 20% of the included trials. Twenty-three trials (27%) reported 7 criteria or more adequately. Both univariable and multivariable logistic regression showed that trials with RT focused research question were more likely to have adequate quality in reporting (judged as adequate reporting in 7 criteria or more) than trials with non-RT focused question (odds ratio 4.11, 95% confidence interval 1.10 to 15.43, P value = .04).
conclusionThere is significant variability in the quality of reporting on thoracic radiotherapy treatment in prospective lung cancer trials. Future research should focus on developing consensus guidelines to standardize the reporting of radiotherapy technique in clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.