Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36431058›Full record

ArticleLife (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Clinical Efficacy of an Electronic Portal Imaging Device versus a Physical Phantom Tool for Patient-Specific Quality Assurance.

Seung-Hyeop Baek, Sang-Hyoun Choi, Moo-Jae Han, Gyu-Seok Cho, Wonil Jang, Jin-Sung Kim, Kum-Bae Kim

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Seung-Hyeop BaekDepartment of Integrative Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8771-0950
Sang-Hyoun ChoiResearch Team of Radiological Physics & Engineering, Korea Institute of Radiological & Medical Sciences, Seoul 01812, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-7763-9844
Moo-Jae HanResearch Team of Radiological Physics & Engineering, Korea Institute of Radiological & Medical Sciences, Seoul 01812, Republic of Korea.
Gyu-Seok ChoResearch Team of Radiological Physics & Engineering, Korea Institute of Radiological & Medical Sciences, Seoul 01812, Republic of Korea.
Wonil JangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Korea Institute of Radiological & Medical Sciences, Seoul 01812, Republic of Korea.
Jin-Sung KimMedical Physics and Biomedical Engineering Lab (MPBEL), Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Republic of Korea.
Kum-Bae KimResearch Team of Radiological Physics & Engineering, Korea Institute of Radiological & Medical Sciences, Seoul 01812, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-9672-2424
Korea Institute of Radiological and Medical Sciences · KRYonsei University · KR

Funding

Nuclear Safety And Security Commission No.2202012, No.2103088
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pre-treatment patient-specific quality assurance (QA) is critical to prevent radiation accidents. The electronic portal imaging device (EPID) is a dose measurement tool with good resolution and a low volume-averaging effect. EPIbeam—an EPID-based portal dosimetry software—has been newly installed in three institutions in Korea. This study evaluated the efficacy of the EPID-based patient-specific QA tool versus the PTW729 detector (a previously used QA tool) based on gamma criteria and planning target volume (PTV). A significant difference was confirmed through the R statistical analysis software. The average gamma passing rates of PTW729 and EPIbeam were 98.73% and 99.60% on 3 mm/3% (local), 96.66% and 97.91% on 2 mm/2% (local), and 88.41% and 74.87% on 1 mm/1% (local), respectively. The p-values between them were 0.015 (3 mm/3%, local), 0.084 (2 mm/2%, local), and less than 0.01 (1 mm/1%, local). Further, the average gamma passing rates of PTW 729 and EPIbeam according to PTV size were 99.55% and 99.91% (PTV < 150 cm3) and 97.91% and 99.28% (PTV > 150 cm3), respectively. The p-values between them were 0.087 (PTV < 150 cm3) and 0.036 (PTV > 150 cm3). These results confirm that EPIbeam can be an effective patient-specific QA tool.

Indexed as

EPIDportal dosimetry softwarequality assuranceradiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID36431058
PMCPMC9694583
OpenAlexW4309288109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.