ArticleJournal of radiation research2024
A national survey of medical staffs' required capability and workload for accelerator-based boron neutron capture therapy.
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. 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.
- Diagnostic and interventional radiology medical physics community in the Asia-Pacific region: an IAEA individual-level survey of medical physicists on professional perceptions and workforce challenges.Physical and engineering sciences in medicine · 2026Article
- Medical staffs' required capability and workload for accelerator-based boron neutron capture therapy: correspondence.Journal of radiation research · 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
This study aimed to identify the required capabilities and workload of medical staff in accelerator-based boron neutron capture therapy (BNCT). From August to September 2022, a questionnaire related to the capabilities and workload in the accelerator-based BNCT was administered to 12 physicians, 7 medical physicists and 7 radiological technologists engaged in BNCT and 6 other medical physicists who were not engaged in BNCT to compare the results acquired by those engaged in BNCT. Only 6-21% of patients referred for BNCT received it. Furthermore, 30-75% of patients who received BNCT were treated at facilities located within their local district. The median required workload per treatment was 55 h. Considering additional workloads for ineligible patients, the required workload reached ~1.2 times longer than those for only eligible patients' treatment. With respect to capabilities, discrepancies were observed in treatment planning, quality assurance and quality control, and commissioning between medical physicists and radiological technologists. Furthermore, the specialized skills required by medical physicists are impossible to acquire from the experience of conventional radiotherapies as physicians engaged in BNCT were specialized not only in radiation oncology, but also in other fields. This study indicated the required workload and staff capabilities for conducting accelerator-based BNCT considering actual clinical conditions. The workload required for BNCT depends on the occupation. It is necessary to establish an educational program and certification system for the skills required to safely and effectively provide BNCT to patients.
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.