ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2024
Improving Management and Compliance of Radiation Therapy Linear Accelerator Quality Assurance Program With Automated Tracking Tools.
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 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- A centralized hybrid model for regulatory inspection readiness in a multi-site radiation oncology system.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Although quality assurance (QA) is crucial in radiation oncology departments, substantial efforts are required to monitor and ensure compliance to high standards. This work aims to analyze the impact of implementing a centralized and automated tracking dashboard on compliance and variance observed in radiation therapy QA results for linear accelerators. Methods and Materials: The study was performed in a large academic center with 7 linear accelerators. An in-house QA Dashboard was implemented in 2019 with design specifications including automated monitoring and visualization of QA progress, ease of use and accessibility, ease of integration, adaptability to new technologies, and facilitation of automated reminders. Monthly QA data were collected between 2016 and 2022 to analyze compliance pre- and post-dashboard implementation. Compliance was characterized as the percentage of tests completed on time. In addition, variance trends for linear accelerator dosimetry measurements and imaging were analyzed over 7 years. Results: In total, 76,066 records were analyzed. Of these records, 73,187 QA measurements were completed on time. Overall QA compliance increased from 75% in 2016 to >99% in 2019 after successful implementation of the QA Dashboard. The main improvement was observed for tests that were implemented more recently, eg, imaging QA and formal recording of daily QA review by physicists. The coefficient of variation was reduced by approximately a factor of 2 for imaging QA after the implementation of the QA Dashboard. For recorded dosimetry measurements, no substantial change in variance was observed. Conclusions: Implementation of the QA Dashboard resulted in a distinct increase in QA compliance. Reduction in the variance in QA measurements was observed for all imaging modalities. These findings demonstrate high impact of automated tracking QA tools on improved compliance and accuracy of QA.
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.