ArticleJournal of medical imaging and radiation oncology2022
Attitudes and access to resources and strategies to improve quality of radiotherapy among US radiation oncologists: A mixed methods study.
Article in Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dissemination and Implementation-A Primer for Accelerating "Time to Translation" in Radiation Oncology.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2025Review
- Associations Between Radiation Oncologist Demographic Factors and Segmentation Similarity Benchmarks: Insights From a Crowd-Sourced Challenge Using Bayesian Estimation.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- Determining The Role Of Radiation Oncologist Demographic Factors On Segmentation Quality: Insights From A Crowd-Sourced Challenge Using Bayesian Estimation.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
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 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWe aimed to assess contouring-related practices among US radiation oncologists and explore how access to and use of resources and quality improvement strategies vary based on individual- and organization-level factors.
methodsWe conducted a mixed methods study with a sequential explanatory design. Surveys were emailed to a random 10% sample of practicing US radiation oncologists. Participating physicians were invited to a semi-structured interview. Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests and a multivariable regression model were used to evaluate associations. Interview data were coded using thematic content analysis.
resultsSurvey overall response rate was 24%, and subsequent completion rate was 97%. Contouring-related questions arise in ≥50% of clinical cases among 73% of respondents. Resources accessed first include published atlases (75%) followed by consulting another radiation oncologist (60%). Generalists access consensus guidelines more often than disease-site specialists (P = 0.04), while eContour.org is more often used by generalists (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.2-14.8) and younger physicians (OR 1.33 for each 5-year increase, 95% CI 1.08-1.67). Common physician-reported barriers to optimizing contour quality are time constraints (58%) and lack of access to disease-site specialists (21%). Forty percent (40%, n = 14) of physicians without access to disease-site specialists indicated it could facilitate the adoption of new treatments. Almost all (97%) respondents have formal peer review, but only 43% have contour-specific review, which is more common in academic centres (P = 0.02).
conclusionPotential opportunities to improve radiation contour quality include improved access to disease-site specialists and contour-specific peer review. Physician time must be considered when designing new strategies.
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.