ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2023
Application of repeat image analysis to radiation therapy imaging modalities as a quality improvement tool for image guided radiotherapy.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2023. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of repeat image analysis to radiation therapy imaging modalities as a quality improvement tool for image guided radiotherapy.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRepeat images contribute to excess patient dose and workflow inefficiencies and can be analyzed to identify potential areas for improvement within a program. Although routinely used in diagnostic imaging, repeat image analysis is not widely used in radiation therapy imaging, despite the role of imaging in the delivery of precise radiation treatments. PURPOSE: Repeat image analysis was performed for on-board cone beam CT imagers and CT simulators within a radiation therapy department. Both the rate of repeat images and the reasons for the repeat images were analyzed.
methodsData from nine conventional linear accelerators and three CT simulators were analyzed retrospectively over a 5-month period. Repeated images that were not part of the standard of care were considered repeat images. The repeat rate was expressed as the number of repeat scans as percentage of the total number of scans performed. The reasons for the repeats were collected and classified as either patient preparation, patient setup, patient motion, or machine error. These reasons were further classified into sub-categories.
resultsThe overall repeat rate across the linear accelerators was 3.3%, with a maximum of 5% on any single machine. The repeat rate for the three CT simulators was 1.5%. The most common reasons for repeat images were patient preparation (incorrect bladder or rectal filling) and patient setup or positioning. Greater positioning challenges led to higher repeat rates on units that treat a large number of breast patients, palliative patients, or pediatric patients.
conclusionsRepeat image analysis can be applied within a radiation therapy department. Establishing baseline repeat rates and analyzing reasons for the repeat images can identify opportunities for improvements in terms of patient dose reduction and workflow efficiency for the program. Periodic repeat image analysis also permits monitoring the program for changes and for comparison against rates at other institutions.
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.