ArticleBJR open2019
Total skin electron beam therapy rationalization and utility of
Article in BJR open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Total skin electron beam therapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Development of a 3D-printed phantom for total skin electron therapy dose assessment.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Patient Dose Analysis Using GafchromicTM EBT3 Film: A Retrospective Study with a Four Dual-Field Technique in Total Skin Electron Therapy.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Article
- Technical Note: A novel dosimeter improves total skin electron therapy surface dosimetry workflow.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis paper reports on the rationalization of a substantial pool of
methodsThermoluminescent dosimeter IVD data from 149 patients were analyzed comparing the population mean and standard deviation for each site. The number of sites required to confirm the prescribed dose were reviewed considering both dosimetric and clinical relevance. The reduced sites were then used to assess the continued dosimetric accuracy on new equipment and the results were compared statistically using the Mann-Witney test.
resultsThe trunk dose measurement points were reduced from nine to six and five extra trunk sites were identified and reviewed clinically prior to removal.Following change in manufacturer the trunk dose points showed no statistically significant change and confirmed that patients had received within 1.3% of the intended mean trunk dose using both delivery methods.A statistically significant change in 4 out of the 13 extra trunk sites was seen following the move to the new centre. However, all but one site showed a change of less than 1 standard deviation.
conclusionThe total number of measurement points per patient were reduced from 27 to 19 which constituted a 25% saving in preparation and read out.Accurate delivery of prescribed dose was confirmed following measurement point reduction for treatments delivered on linacs from two different manufacturers. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Proven methodology for rationalization of IVD measurements for TSEBT.
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.