ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2024
Perceptions on and roadblocks to implementation of standardized nomenclature in radiation oncology: A survey from TG-263U1.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models for scalable standardization in radiation oncology.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Thoracic reirradiation clinical and technical practices: a survey from the reirradiation Collaborative Group (ReCOG).Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Harmonizing organ-at-risk structure names using open-source large language models.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2025Article
- Perceptions on and roadblocks to implementation of standardized nomenclature in radiation oncology: A survey from TG-263U1.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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAAPM Task Group No. 263U1 (Update to Report No. 263 - Standardizing Nomenclatures in Radiation Oncology) disseminated a survey to receive feedback on utilization, gaps, and means to facilitate further adoption.
methodsThe survey was created by TG-263U1 members to solicit feedback from physicists, dosimetrists, and physicians working in radiation oncology. Questions on the adoption of the TG-263 standard were coupled with demographic information, such as clinical role, place of primary employment (e.g., private hospital, academic center), and size of institution. The survey was emailed to all AAPM, AAMD, and ASTRO members.
resultsThe survey received 463 responses with 310 completed survey responses used for analysis, of whom most had the clinical role of medical physicist (73%) and the majority were from the United States (83%). There were 83% of respondents who indicated that they believe that having a nomenclature standard is important or very important and 61% had adopted all or portions of TG-263 in their clinics. For those yet to adopt TG-263, the staffing and implementation efforts were the main cause for delaying adoption. Fewer respondents had trouble adopting TG-263 for organs at risk (29%) versus target (44%) nomenclature. Common themes in written feedback were lack of physician support and available resources, especially in vendor systems, to facilitate adoption.
conclusionsWhile there is strong support and belief in the benefit of standardized nomenclature, the widespread adoption of TG-263 has been hindered by the effort needed by staff for implementation. Feedback from the survey is being utilized to drive the focus of the update efforts and create tools to facilitate easier adoption of TG-263.
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.