ArticleJournal of global oncology2019
Impact of Peer Review in the Radiation Treatment Planning Process: Experience of a Tertiary Care University Hospital in Pakistan.
Article in Journal of global oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Radiologist Involvement in Radiation Oncology Peer Review: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluating the Impact of Transitioning from Weekly to Daily Peer Review in Radiation Oncology.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
- Strengthening the Pediatric Radiation Oncology Workforce Through Digital Learning: A Capacity-Building Pilot from Pakistan.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2025Article
- Peripheral T-cell lymphoma of the lip: a rare case unveiling key insights into diagnosis and management.Ecancermedicalscience · 2025Article
- Review of Quality Audit in a Radiation Oncology Department in a Tertiary Care Hospital- 2 Year-Results.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Article
- In regard to Kim et al.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Evaluating Peer Review of Palliative Radiation Plans at a Canadian Tertiary Care Cancer Center.Cureus · 2024Article
- Radiation Oncology Health Disparities in Pakistan.JCO global oncology · 2023Article
- Reply to A. Mangla.JCO global oncology · 2023Article
- Out-of-pocket costs associated with head and neck cancer treatment.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2022Article
- 100% peer review in radiation oncology: is it feasible?Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2020Article
- Three discipline collaborative radiation therapy (3DCRT) special debate: Peer review in radiation oncology is more effective today than 20 years ago.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
- In Regard to Hesse et al.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate and report the frequency of changes in radiation therapy treatment plans after peer review in a simulation review meeting once a week. MATERIALS AND
methodsBetween July 1 and August 31, 2016, the radiation plans of 116 patients were discussed in departmental simulation review meetings. All plans were finalized by the primary radiation oncologist before presenting them in the meeting. A team of radiation oncologists reviewed each plan, and their suggestions were documented as no change, major change, minor change, or missing contour. Changes were further classified as changes in clinical target volume, treatment field, or dose. All recommendations were stratified on the basis of treatment intent, site, and technique. Data were analyzed by Statistical Package for the Social Sciences and are presented descriptively.
resultsOut of 116 plans, 26 (22.4%) were recommended for changes. Minor changes were suggested in 15 treatment plans (12.9%) and a major change in 10 (8.6%), and only one plan was suggested for missing contour. The frequency of change recommendations was greater in radical radiation plans than in palliative plans (92.3%
conclusionPeer review is an important tool that can be used to overcome deficiencies in radiation treatment plans, with a goal of improved and individualized patient care. Our study reports changes in up to a quarter of radiotherapy plans.
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.