ReviewJournal of medical radiation sciences2025
Quantifying non-clinical outcomes of ultra-hypofractionated breast radiotherapy in Western NSW-A narrative review.
Review in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2025. 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.
- Bibliometric insights into the advancements and future directions of hypofractionated radiotherapy in breast cancer.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Value-Based Healthcare-What Does it Look Like for Medical Radiation Sciences in the Australian Context?Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultra-Hypofractionated Whole Breast Radiotherapy (U-WBRT) has been proven to be a viable treatment option for breast cancer patients receiving radiation therapy, however, due to its novelty our understanding of its non-clinical benefits is still evolving. With increasing U-WBRT selection during COVID and in rural and regional settings such as the Western New South Wales Local Health District (WNSWLHD), it's important to quantify the savings when compared to other fractionation schedules (e.g. Conventional fractionation (C-WBRT) involving 25 fractions and Moderate hypofractionation (M-WBRT) with 15 fractions.) Using literature sourced from Medline, Embase, Pubmed and reports from relevant websites and organisations this narrative review investigates quantifiable methods of assessing non-clinical benefits of U-WBRT in rural settings according to the triple bottom line philosophy. This review was able to identify a standard set of quantifiable metrics that can compare the non-clinical benefits of various fractionation schedules, with relevance to a rural setting. These include: fractionation trends, financial subsidy, average linear accelerator (Linac) minutes, hospital visits, travel time and distance, Linac energy consumption, travel and Linac carbon emissions. By identifying these metrics, non-clinical benefits between the fractionation schedules can easily be quantified and compared.
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.