GuidelinePhysical and engineering sciences in medicine2023
ACPSEM position paper: dosimetry for magnetic resonance imaging linear accelerators.
Guideline in Physical and engineering sciences in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- ACPSEM guideline: commissioning and quality assurance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Linear Accelerators.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- ACPSEM guideline regarding the adoption of the IAEA TRS-398 Code of Practice Revision 1.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- A Review of the Australian MRI Linac Program: From Pie in the Sky to Research Milestone.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2026Review
- Entry skin dose reduction in an inline MRI-linac using an electron contamination deflector coupled with a helium volume.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Magnetic-Field-Induced Secondary-Electron Effects in MR-Guided Radiotherapy: From Dosimetric Mechanisms to Workflow-Based Clinical Risk Management.Technology in cancer research & treatmentReview
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Consistency and clear guidelines on dosimetry are essential for accurate and precise dosimetry, to ensure the best patient outcomes and to allow direct dose comparison across different centres. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Linac (MRI-linac) systems have recently been introduced to Australasian clinics. This report provides recommendations on reference dosimetry measurements for MRI-linacs on behalf of the Australiasian College of Physical Scientists and Engineers in Medicine (ACPSEM) MRI-linac working group. There are two configurations considered for MRI-linacs, perpendicular and parallel, referring to the relative direction of the magnetic field and radiation beam, with different impacts on dose deposition in a medium. These recommendations focus on ion chambers which are most commonly used in the clinic for reference dosimetry. Water phantoms must be MR safe or conditional and practical limitations on phantom set-up must be considered. Solid phantoms are not advised for reference dosimetry. For reference dosimetry, IAEA TRS-398 recommendations cannot be followed completely due to physical differences between conventional linac and MRI-linac systems. Manufacturers' advice on reference conditions should be followed. Beam quality specification of TPR
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.