ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2020
Technical Note: A novel dosimeter improves total skin electron therapy surface dosimetry workflow.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Wide area surface dosimetry with conformal scintillator array for external beam radiotherapy.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Electron beam detection in radiotherapy using a capacitor dosimeter equipped with a silicon photodiode.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2023Article
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 at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe novel scintillator-based system described in this study is capable of accurately and remotely measuring surface dose during Total Skin Electron Therapy (TSET); this dosimeter does not require post-exposure processing or annealing and has been shown to be re-usable, resistant to radiation damage, have minimal impact on surface dose, and reduce chances of operator error compared to existing technologies e.g. optically stimulated luminescence detector (OSLD). The purpose of this study was to quantitatively analyze the workflow required to measure surface dose using this new scintillator dosimeter and compare it to that of standard OSLDs.
methodsDisc-shaped scintillators were attached to a flat-faced phantom and a patient undergoing TSET. Light emission from these plastic discs was captured using a time-gated, intensified, camera during irradiation and converted to dose using an external calibration factor. Time required to complete each step (daily QA, dosimeter preparation, attachment, removal, registration, and readout) of the scintillator and OSLD surface dosimetry workflows was tracked.
resultsIn phantoms, scintillators and OSLDs surface doses agreed within 3% for all data points. During patient imaging it was found that surface dose measured by OSLD and scintillator agreed within 5% and 3% for 35/35 and 32/35 dosimetry sites, respectively. The end-to-end time required to measure surface dose during phantom experiments for a single dosimeter was 78 and 202 sec for scintillator and OSL dosimeters, respectively. During patient treatment, surface dose was assessed at 7 different body locations by scintillator and OSL dosimeters in 386 and 754 sec, respectively.
conclusionScintillators have been shown to report dose nearly twice as fast as OSLDs with substantially less manual work and reduced chances of human error. Scintillator dose measurements are automatically saved to an electronic patient file and images contain a permanent record of the dose delivered during treatment.
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.