ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2021
Evaluation of the XVI dual registration tool for image-guided radiotherapy in prostate cancer.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accuracy and feasibility of sitting bladder volume measurement using portable ultrasound device in prostate radiotherapy.Radiological physics and technology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the reliability and the required time for two cone-beam CT (CBCT) registration methods for prostate irradiation (PI) and prostate bed irradiation (PBI). MATERIAL AND
methodsTwo-hundred treatment fractions (in 10 PI and 10 PBI patients) were reanalyzed, using two CBCT registration methods: (1) a combination of an automated chamfer matching (CM) with manual matching (MM), and (2) the automated XVI dual registration tool (DRT). Bland-Altman 95% Limits of Agreement (LoA) were used to assess agreement with manual registration by Radiation Oncologists.
resultsAll 95% LoA for CM + MM were ≤ 0.33 cm. For DRT, several 95% LoA were notably larger than the predefined clinical threshold of 0.3 cm: -0.47 to +0.25 cm (PI) and -0.36 to +0.23 cm (PBI) for the superior-inferior direction and -0.52 to +0.24 cm (PI) and -0.38 to +0.31 cm (PBI) for the anterior-posterior direction.For PI, the average time required was 33 s with CM + MM versus only 18 s with DRT (
conclusionFor PI, DRT was significantly faster than CM + MM, but the accuracy is insufficient to use without manual verification. Therefore, manual verification is still warranted, but could offset the time benefit. For PBI, the CM + MM method was faster and more accurate.
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.