ArticleJournal of radiation research2024
Quality of palliative radiotherapy assessed using quality indicators: a multicenter survey†.
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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We sought to identify potential evidence-practice gaps in palliative radiotherapy using quality indicators (QIs), previously developed using a modified Delphi method. Seven QIs were used to assess the quality of radiotherapy for bone metastases (BoM) and brain metastases (BrM). Compliance rate was calculated as the percentage of patients for whom recommended medical care was conducted. Random effects models were used to estimate the pooled compliance rates. Of the 39 invited radiation oncologists, 29 (74%) from 29 centers participated in the survey; 13 (45%) were academic and 16 (55%) were non-academic hospitals. For the QIs, except for BoM-4, the pooled compliance rates were higher than 80%; however, for at least some of the centers, the compliance rate was lower than these pooled rates. For BoM-4 regarding steroid use concurrent with radiotherapy for malignant spinal cord compression, the pooled compliance rate was as low as 32%. For BoM-1 regarding the choice of radiation schedule, the compliance rate was higher in academic hospitals than in non-academic hospitals (P = 0.021). For BrM-3 regarding the initiation of radiotherapy without delay, the compliance rate was lower in academic hospitals than in non-academic hospitals (P = 0.016). In conclusion, overall, compliance rates were high; however, for many QIs, practice remains to be improved in at least some centers. Steroids are infrequently used concurrently with radiotherapy for malignant spinal cord compression.
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.