Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38298329›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2024

Implementation of a Novel Chart Rounds Application to Facilitate Peer Review in a Virtual Academic Environment.

Naba Ali, Eduard Schreibmann, Oluwatosin Kayode, Ashish Patel, Pretesh Patel, David Qian, Neal McCall, Joshua Lorenz, Kristin A Higgins, Jeffrey Bradley and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Current practices in peer review in German radiation oncology: a nationwide survey.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026
    Article
  5. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Naba AliWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Eduard SchreibmannWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Oluwatosin KayodeWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Ashish PatelWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Pretesh PatelWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
David QianWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Neal McCallWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Joshua LorenzWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Kristin A HigginsWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jeffrey BradleyUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Susan BrownWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Joseph SheltonWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Emory University · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Peer review in the form of chart rounds is a critical component of quality assurance and safety in radiation therapy treatments. Radiation therapy departments have undergone significant changes that impose challenges to meaningful review, including institutional growth and increasing use of virtual environment. We discuss the implementation of a novel chart rounds (NCR) format and application adapted to modern peer review needs at a single high-volume multisite National Cancer Institute designated cancer center. Methods and Materials: A working group was created to improve upon the prior institutional chart rounds format (standard chart rounds or SCR). Using a novel in-house application and format redesign, an NCR was created and implemented to accomplish stated goals. Data regarding the SCR and NCR system were then extracted for review. Results: SCR consisted of 2- 90-minute weekly sessions held to review plans across all disease sites, review of 49 plans per hour on average. NCR uses 1-hour long sessions divided by disease site, enabling additional time to be spent per patient (11 plans per hour on average) and more robust discussion. The NCR application is able to automate a list of plans requiring peer review from the institutional treatment planning system. The novel application incorporates features that enable efficient and accurate review of plans in the virtual setting across multiple sites. A systematic scoring system is integrated into the application to record feedback. Over 5 months of use of the NCR, 1160 plans have been reviewed with 143 scored as requiring minor changes, 32 requiring major changes and 307 with comments. Major changes triggered treatment replan. Feedback from scoring is incorporated into physician workflow to ensure changes are addressed. Conclusion: The presented NCR format and application enables standardized and highly reliable peer review of radiation therapy plans that is robust across a variety of complex planning scenarios and could be implemented globally.

Identifiers

PMID38298329
PMCPMC10828579
OpenAlexW4388794100

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.