ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2021
Toward automation of initial chart check for photon/electron EBRT: the clinical implementation of new AAPM task group reports and automation techniques.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2021. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and evaluation of an automated report-based chart checking tool in external beam radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Enhancing clinical safety in radiation oncology: A data-driven approach to risk management.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2025Article
- Development of a hybrid automated chart checking, data collection, and analysis system.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Quality Management for Radiation Oncology In-House Software Products.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Developing an automatic treatment record review system for quality assurance of patient treatment delivery in radiation therapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Technical note: An automated document verification tool in radiation oncology EMR: Application for LDR prostate brachytherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
- Assessing initial plan check efficacy using TG 275 failure modes and incident reporting.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
- Three discipline collaborative radiation therapy (3DCRT) special debate: A physicist's time is better spent in direct patient/provider interaction than in the patient's chart.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe recently published AAPM TG-275 and the public review version of TG-315 list new recommendations for comprehensive and minimum physics initial chart checks, respectively. This article addresses the potential development and benefit of initial chart check automation when these recommendations are implemented for clinical photon/electron EBRT.
methodsEight board-certified physicists with 2-20 years of clinical experience performed initial chart checks using checklists from TG-275 and TG-315. Manual check times were estimated for three types of plans (IMRT/VMAT, 3D, and 2D) and for prostate, whole pelvis, lung, breast, head and neck, and brain cancers. An expert development team of three physicists re-evaluated the automation feasibility of TG-275 checklist based on their experience of developing and implementing the in-house and the commercial automation tools in our institution. Three levels of initial chart check automation were simulated: (1) Auto_UMMS_tool (which consists of in-house program and commercially available software); (2) Auto_TG275 (with full and partial automation as indicated in TG-275); and (3) Auto_UMMS_exp (with full and partial automation as determined by our experts' re-evaluation).
resultsWith no automation of initial chart checks, the ranges of manual check times were 29-56 min (full TG-315 list) and 102-163 min (full TG-275 list), which varied significantly with physicists but varied little at different tumor sites. The 69 of 71 checks which were considered as "not fully automated" in TG-275 were re-evaluated with more automation feasibility. Compared to no automation, the higher levels of automation yielded a great reduction in both manual check times (by 44%-98%) and potentially residual detectable errors (by 15-85%).
conclusionThe initial chart check automation greatly improves the practicality and efficiency of implementing the new TG recommendations. Revisiting the TG reports with new technology/practice updates may help develop and utilize more automation clinically.
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.