Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36735173›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2023

Do Radiation Oncology Residents Have a Preferred Radiation Treatment Planning Review Format?

Conley Kriegler, Mustafa Al Balushi, Yiming Michael Zhu, Jordan Hill, Ananya Beruar, Sunita Ghosh, Alysa Fairchild, Diane Severin

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 99% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Conley KrieglerDivision of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, 11560 University Ave, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1Z2, Canada. kriegler@ualberta.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-9643-8976
Mustafa Al BalushiDivision of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, 11560 University Ave, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1Z2, Canada.
Yiming Michael ZhuDivision of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, 11560 University Ave, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1Z2, Canada.
Jordan HillDivision of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, 11560 University Ave, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1Z2, Canada.
Ananya BeruarDivision of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, 11560 University Ave, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1Z2, Canada.
Sunita GhoshDivision of Experimental Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Alysa FairchildDivision of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, 11560 University Ave, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1Z2, Canada.
Diane SeverinDivision of Radiation Oncology, Cross Cancer Institute, University of Alberta, 11560 University Ave, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1Z2, Canada.
University of Alberta · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In an era of increasing virtual communication, we aimed to investigate current formats used by radiation oncology residents for reviewing radiation treatment plans with attendings, preferences for formats, and reasons contributing to preferences. Residents enrolled in Canadian radiation oncology programs received questionnaires examining training level, typical review formats, preferred format, and reasons for preference. Analysis excluded PGY-1s due to insufficient exposure. Fifty-two residents participated. National response rate was 55%. Overall, hybrid review was the most used format (77%). Virtual review was the most preferred format (44%). Preference for virtual review was most common among junior residents (57%), while in-person review was most preferred by senior residents (45.4%). Few residents typically use their preferred format (35%). Reasons for preference varied between groups in convenience (p < 0.01), interactivity (p < 0.01), and teaching quality (p = 0.04). The persistence of e-learning suggests that virtual treatment planning education will continue to some degree. Junior residents prefer virtual review, while a clearly preferred review format was less apparent among senior residents. Preferences are multifactorial, and the trends seen in reasons for preference between formats may reflect advantages inherent to each. Progress is still needed in optimizing treatment planning education, as suggested by few residents using their preferred format. Residents and staff should collectively decide which educational format for treatment planning best meets educational needs.

Indexed as

Internship and ResidencyRadiation OncologyCanadaHumansLearningSurveys and QuestionnairesPost-Graduate Medical EducationRadiation OncologyRadiation Treatment PlanningTeleconferenceVirtual Education

Identifiers

PMID36735173
PMCPMC9895963
OpenAlexW4319058254

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.