Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37996096›Full record

ArticleJournal of radiation research2024

Current status of remote radiotherapy treatment planning in Japan: findings from a national survey†.

Masahide Saito, Tetsuro Tamamoto, Shohei Kawashiro, Rei Umezawa, Masaki Matsuda, Naoki Tohyama, Yoshiyuki Katsuta, Takayuki Kanai, Hikaru Nemoto, Hiroshi Onishi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of radiation research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 46% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Masahide SaitoDepartment of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo, Yamanashi 409-3898, Japan.
Tetsuro TamamotoDepartment of Medical Informatics, Nara Medical University Hospital, 840 Shijyo-cho, Kashihara, Nara 634-8521, Japan.
Shohei KawashiroDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Faculty of Medicine, Yamagata University, 2-2-2 Iida-Nishi, Yamagata, Yamagata 990-9585, Japan.
Rei UmezawaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8574, Japan.
Masaki MatsudaDepartment of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo, Yamanashi 409-3898, Japan.
Naoki TohyamaDivision of Medical Physics, Tokyo Bay Makuhari Clinic for Advanced Imaging, Cancer Screening, and High-Precision Radiotherapy, 1-17 Toyosuna, Mihama-ku, Chiba, Chiba 261-0024, Japan.
Yoshiyuki KatsutaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-1 Seiryo-machi, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 980-8574, Japan.
Takayuki KanaiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, 8-1, Kawada-Cho, Shinjuku-Ku, Tokyo 162-8666, Japan.
Hikaru NemotoDepartment of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo, Yamanashi 409-3898, Japan.
Hiroshi OnishiDepartment of Radiology, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo, Yamanashi 409-3898, Japan.
University of Yamanashi Hospital · JPTohoku University · JPNara Medical University · JPTokyo Women's Medical University · JPYamagata University · JP

Funding

Health Labour Sciences Research Grant 21EA1010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the status of remote-radiotherapy treatment planning (RRTP) in Japan through a nationwide questionnaire survey. The survey was conducted between 29 June and 4 August 2022, at 834 facilities in Japan that were equipped with linear accelerators. The survey utilized a Google form that comprised 96 questions on facility information, information about the respondent, utilization of RRTP between facilities, usage for telework and the inclination to implement RRTPs in the respondent's facility. The survey analyzed the utilization of the RRTP system in four distinct implementation types: (i) utilization as a supportive facility, (ii) utilization as a treatment facility, (iii) utilization as a teleworker outside of the facility and (iv) utilization as a teleworker within the facility. The survey response rate was 58.4% (487 facilities responded). Among the facilities that responded, 10% (51 facilities) were implementing RRTP. 13 served as supportive facilities, 23 as treatment facilities, 17 as teleworkers outside of the facility and 5 as teleworkers within the facility. In terms of system usage between supportive and treatment facilities, 70-80% of the participants utilized the system for emergencies or as overtime work for external workers. A substantial number of facilities (38.8%) reported that they were unfamiliar with RRTP implementation. The survey showed that RRTP utilization in Japan is still limited, with a significant number of facilities unfamiliar with the technology. The study highlights the need for greater understanding and education about RRTP and financial funds of economical compensation.

Indexed as

Radiation OncologyHumansJapanParticle AcceleratorsSurveys and Questionnairesnetworkremote radiotherapy treatment planningsurveyteleworkworkforce

Identifiers

PMID37996096
PMCPMC10803164
OpenAlexW4388982498

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.