ReviewZeitschrift fur medizinische Physik2023
Determination of the dose rate around a HDR
Review in Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- High dose rate 192Ir brachytherapy source model Monte Carlo dosimetry: mHDR-v2 and mHDR-v2r.PloS one · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo employ the microDiamond and the microSilicon detector (mDD and mSD, both PTW-Freiburg, Germany) to determine the dose rate around a HDR
methodsThe detectors were calibrated with a
resultsThe beam quality correction factor was considerably closer to unity for the mDD than for the mSD. The energy dependence of the mDD showed a very weak radial dependence, similar to the previous findings showing a weak angular dependence as well (Rossi et al., 2020). Conversely, the energy dependence of the mSD decreased significantly with increasing distances, and also showed a considerably more pronounced angular dependence, especially for the smallest angles. The volume-averaging showed a similar radial dependence for both detectors: the correction had a maximal impact at 0.5 cm and then approached unity for larger distances, as expected. Concerning the angular dependence, the correction for the mSD was also similar to the one previously determined for the mDD (Rossi et al., 2020): a maximal impact was observed at θ = 0°, with values tending to unity for larger angles. In general, the volume-averaging was less pronounced for the mSD due to the smaller sensitive volume radius. After the application of the MC-based factors, differences between mDD dose rate measurements and TG-43 dose rate calculations ranged from -2.6% to +4.3%, with an absolute average difference of 1.0%. For the mSD, the differences ranged from -3.1% to +5.2%, with an absolute average difference of 1.0%. For both detectors, all differences but one were within the combined uncertainty (k = 2). The differences of the mSD from the mDD ranged from -3.9% to +2.6%, with the vast majority of them being within the combined uncertainty (k = 2). For θ ≠ 0°, the mDD was able to provide sufficiently accurate results even without the application of the MC-based beam quality correction factor, with differences to the TG-43 dose rate calculations from -1.9% to +3.4%, always within the combined uncertainty (k = 2).
conclusionThe mDD and the mSD showed consistent results and appear to be well suitable for measuring the dose rate around HDR
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.