Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32518531›Full record

ReviewReports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology

A critical literature review on the use of bellyboard devices to control small bowel dose for pelvic radiotherapy.

Matthew Hoffmann, Kim Waller, Andrew Last, Justin Westhuyzen

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthew HoffmannDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mid-North Coast Cancer Institute, Port Macquarie, New South Wales, Australia.
Kim WallerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mid-North Coast Cancer Institute, Port Macquarie, New South Wales, Australia.
Andrew LastDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mid-North Coast Cancer Institute, Port Macquarie, New South Wales, Australia.
Justin WesthuyzenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mid-North Coast Cancer Institute, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia.
Northern Cancer Institute · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Delivering curative radiotherapy doses for rectal and gynaecological tumours has historically been complicated by the dose tolerance of the small bowel. Acute radiation-induced small bowel toxicity includes side effects such as abdominal pain, nausea and diarrhoea. With the advent of new treatment delivery modalities, such as IMRT (Intensity modulated radiotherapy) and VMAT (Volumetric modulated Arc radiotherapy), there has been an expectation that small bowel doses can be better controlled with the use of these technologies. These capabilities enable the creation of treatment plans that can better avoid critical radiosensitive organs. The purpose of this review is to look beyond advances in linear accelerator technology in seeking improvements to small bowel dose and toxicity. This review examines whether an alternative prone patient positioning approach using a bellyboard device in conjunction with IMRT and VMAT treatment delivery can reduce small bowel doses further than using these technologies with the patient in a traditional supine position.

Indexed as

BellyboardGynaecological radiotherapyPelvisProne positionRectumSmall bowelSupine position

Identifiers

PMID32518531
PMCPMC7267681
OpenAlexW3027705166

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.