ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Comparison of failure modes and effects analyses and time for brachytherapy ring and tandem applicator digitization between manual and solid applicator source placement methods.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematizing the risk management process in clinical radiotherapy practice: Recommendations of the working group on risk management of the DGMP.Zeitschrift fur medizinische Physik · 2025Article
- Comparison of failure modes and effects analyses and time for brachytherapy ring and tandem applicator digitization between manual and solid applicator source placement methods.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRing and tandem (R&T) applicator digitization is currently performed at our institution by manually defining the extent of the applicators. Digitization can also be achieved using solid applicators: predefined, 3D models with geometric constraints. This study compares R&T digitization using manual and solid applicator methods through Failure Modes and Effects Analyses (FMEAs) and comparative time studies. We aim to assess the suitability of solid applicator method implementation for R&T cases
methodsSix qualified medical physicists (QMPs) and two medical physics residents scored potential modes of failure of manual digitization in an FMEA as recommended by TG-100. Occurrence, severity, and detectability (OSD) values were averaged across respondents and then multiplied to form combined Risk Priority Numbers (RPNs) for analysis. Participants were trained to perform treatment planning using a developed solid applicator protocol and asked to score a second FMEA on the distinct process steps from the manual method. For both methods, participant digitization was timed. FMEA and time data were analyzed across methods and participant samples
resultsQMPs rated the RPNs of the current, manual method of digitization statistically lower than residents did. When comparing the unique FMEA steps between the two digitization methods, QMP respondents found no significant difference in RPN means. Residents, however, rated the solid applicator method as higher risk. Further, after the solid applicator method was performed twice by participants, the time to digitize plans was not significantly different from manual digitization
conclusionsThis study indicates the non-inferiority of the solid applicator method to manual digitization in terms of risk, according to QMPs, and time, across all participants. Differences were found in FMEA evaluation and solid applicator technique adoption based on years of brachytherapy experience. Further practice with the solid applicator protocol is recommended because familiarity is expected to lower FMEA occurrence ratings and further reduce digitization times.
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.