ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology
Improving Communication of Peer-Review Conference Outcomes: A Practical Experience.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Disease-Site Specific Peer Review Implementation: From Chart Rounds to the Treatment Couch.Advances in radiation oncology · 2026Article
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
Purpose: The aim of this work was to describe the design and implementation of a more robust workflow for communicating outcomes from a peer-review chart rounds conference. We also provide information regarding cycle times, plan revisions, and other key metrics that we have observed since initial implementation. Methods and Materials: A multidisciplinary team of stakeholders including physicians, physicists, and dosimetrists developed a revised peer-review workflow that addressed key needs to improve the prior process. Consensus terminology was developed to reduce ambiguity regarding the priority of peer-review outcomes and to clarify expectations of the treating physician in response to peer-review outcomes. A custom workflow software tool was developed to facilitate both upstream and downstream processes from the chart rounds conference. The peer-review outcomes of the chart rounds conference and resulting plan changes for the first 18 months of implementation were summarized. Results: In the first 18 months after implementation of the revised processes, 2294 plans were reviewed, and feedback priority levels assigned. Across all cases with feedback, the median time for the treating attending physician to acknowledge conference comments was 1 day and was within 7 calendar days for 89.1% of cases. Conference feedback was acknowledged within 1 day for 74 of 115 (64.3%) cases with level 2 comments and for 18 of 21 (85.7%) cases with level 3 comments ( Conclusions: We successfully implemented a workflow to improve upstream and downstream processes for a chart rounds conference. Standardizing how peer-review outcomes were communicated and recording physician responses allow for improved ability to monitor conference activities.
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.