ArticlePhysics and imaging in radiation oncology2020
Sensitivity analysis of different quality assurance methods for magnetic resonance imaging in radiotherapy.
Article in Physics and imaging in radiation oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality assurance and temporal stability of a 1.5 T MRI scanner for MR-guided Photon and Particle Therapy.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Powered Quality Assurance: Transforming Diagnostics, Surgery, and Patient Care-Innovations, Limitations, and Future Directions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A critical assessment of artificial intelligence in magnetic resonance imaging of cancer.Npj imaging · 2025Review
- Determination of acceptable Hounsfield units uncertainties via a sensitivity analysis for an accurate dose calculation in the context of prostate MRI-only radiotherapy.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2023Article
- EANM guidelines for PET-CT and PET-MR routine quality control.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2023Review
- Developing quality assurance tests for simultaneous Positron Emission Tomography - Magnetic Resonance imaging for radiotherapy planning.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2022Article
- A phantom based laser marking workflow to visually assess geometric image distortion in magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2021Article
- Determination of acceptance criteria for geometric accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging scanners used in radiotherapy planning.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeThere are currently no standard quality assurance (QA) methods for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in radiotherapy (RT). This work was aimed at evaluating the ability of two QA protocols to detect common events that affect quality of MR images under RT settings. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe American College of Radiology (ACR) MRI QA phantom was repeatedly scanned using a flexible coil and action limits for key image quality parameters were derived. Using an exploratory survey, issues that reduce MR image quality were identified. The most commonly occurring events were introduced as provocations to produce MR images with degraded quality. From these images, detection sensitivities of the ACR MRI QA protocol and a commercial geometric accuracy phantom were determined.
resultsMachine-specific action limits for key image quality parameters set at
conclusionsThe ACR MRI QA phantom combined with the large field-of-view commercial geometric accuracy phantom were generally sensitive in identifying some common MR image quality issues. The two protocols when combined may provide a tool to monitor the performance of MRI systems in the radiotherapy environment.
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.