Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31778317›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of radiology2020

Myths and realities of range uncertainty.

Antony John Lomax

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Emerging technologies for cancer therapy using accelerated particles.Progress in particle and nuclear physics · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Depth dose measurements in water forNuclear instruments & methods in physics research. Section A, Accelerators, spectrometers, detectors and associated equipment · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. An Iterative Least Squares Method for Proton CT Image Reconstruction.IEEE transactions on radiation and plasma medical sciences · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Adaptive proton therapy.Physics in medicine and biology · 2021
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

1 author.

Antony John LomaxCentre for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, Switzerland and Department of Physics, ETH Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Range uncertainty is a much discussed topic in proton therapy. Although a very real aspect of proton therapy, its magnitude and consequences are sometimes misunderstood or overestimated. In this article, the sources and consequences of range uncertainty are reviewed, a number of myths associated with the effect discussed with the aim of putting range uncertainty into clinical context and attempting to de-bunk some of the more exaggerated claims made as to its consequences.

Indexed as

UncertaintyAbsorption, RadiationHumansNeoplasms, Radiation-InducedPatient PositioningPhotonsProton TherapyRadiotherapy DosageTreatment OutcomeWaterWater

Identifiers

PMID31778317
PMCPMC7066970

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.