ArticleJournal of medical imaging and radiation sciences2022
Academic patterns of practice regarding CT simulation scans and radiology review.
Article in Journal of medical imaging and radiation sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveCurrently, there are no consensus guidelines about handling incidental radiological findings on radiotherapy planning CT simulation scans. Retrospective studies analyzing incidental findings on CT simulations show a small, but not insignificant, rate of both oncologic and non-oncologic findings. These findings may have medico-legal, financial, and clinical implications. Given a lack of guidelines, we obtained a formal survey of multiple academic institutions to evaluate how CT simulations are handled in regard to incidental findings.
methodsA formal survey was developed consisting of 12 questions related to institutional practices regarding CT simulation scans. From 7/18/21 to 8/27/21 and 5/6/22 to 5/24/22, the survey was administered electronically by REDCap to key personnel at Academic Radiation Oncology Programs identified through the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) with inclusion criteria including an active ACGME approved Radiation Oncology residency program.
resultsIn total, 88 academic radiation oncology programs were surveyed with total of 45 responses (51%). 1 out of 45 departments who responded has formal guidelines regarding workup of incidental findings. There is variability about sending CT simulation scans for official radiology review if an incidental finding is identified.
conclusionsBased on a measurable rate of incidental findings on radiotherapy planning CT simulations and their possible implications, our survey illustrates a likely need for consensus recommendations for handling such findings to improve patient care and safety.
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.