ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2024
The status quo of global geriatric radiation oncology education: A scoping review.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To identify potential gaps in geriatric radiation oncology (RO) education worldwide, as measured by geriatric oncology (GO) content within postgraduate RO training program (TP) curricula across 8 focus countries. Methods and materials: The need for improved education around GO is internationally recognized and is a key strategic priority of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG).Two reviewers undertook a systematic scoping review from March to September 2023. Focus countries were selected using predefined selection criteria based on national radiation therapy (RT) service provision, RT access and post-graduate specialty training standards. This review is in accordance with evidence-based curriculum design methodology and represents the initial phase i.e., problem identification and needs assessment. Results: Overall RO TP and curriculum elements varied by jurisdiction. Common elements included length of training, summative assessments and prerequisite requirements. Considerable variability exists across TPs around identified learning outcomes, content, TP organization, training networks and accreditation.Across 6 TPs, only 2 had any documented GO curriculum content. Of these, only one contained geriatric RO content scoring moderate to high based on accepted quality benchmarks. Outside official RO TPs, there is considerable GO online education content, including face to face courses, peer-reviewed articles, learning materials and resources relevant to RO postgraduate training worldwide. However accessibility to these learning interventions may be region specific and content is not standardized. Conclusions: As expected, this systematic scoping review has identified significant gaps in GO education within RO TPs worldwide. These findings represent an essential step in the development of evidence-based recommendations for updating standards for GO training within RO training programs and establishing a globally accepted, standardized benchmarks for minimal geriatric RO education. In turn, this will ensure future radiation oncologists are able to deliver a high standard of care to and improve outcomes for older people with cancer.
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.