ArticleJournal of radiation research2025
Clinical workload profile of medical physics professionals at particle therapy Centers: a National Survey in Japan.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dosimetric evaluation of patient-side range shifters using two materials for superficial region treatment in spot scanning proton therapy: impact of material, air gap and setup distance.Journal of radiation research · 2026Article
- Validation of automated script-based proton therapy optimisation for comparative head and neck planning.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Survey and profile data on particle therapy technology in Japan.Japanese journal of radiology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The current research on staffing models is primarily focused on conventional external photon beam therapy, which predominantly involves using linear accelerators. This emphasizes the need for comprehensive studies to understand better and define specific particle therapy facilities' staffing requirements. In a 2022 survey of 25 particle therapy facilities in Japan with an 84% response rate, significant insights were obtained regarding workload distribution, defined as the product of personnel count and task time (person-minutes), for patient-related tasks and equipment quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC). The survey revealed that machinery QA/QC tasks were particularly demanding, with an average monthly workload of 376.9 min and weekly tasks averaging 162.1 min. In comparison, patient-related workloads focused on treatment planning, exhibiting substantial time commitments, particularly for scanning and passive scattering techniques. The average workloads for treatment planning per patient were 291.3 and 195.4 min, respectively. In addition, specific patient scenarios such as pre-treatment sedation in pediatric cases require longer durations (averaging 84.5 min), which likely include the workloads of not only the physician responsible for sedation but also the radiotherapy technology and medical physics specialists providing support during sedation and the nursing staff involved in sedation care. These findings underscore the significant time investments required for machinery QA/QC and patient-specific treatment planning in particle therapy facilities, along with the need for specialized care procedures in pediatric cases. The results of this survey also emphasized the challenges and staffing requirements to ensure QA/QC in high-precision medical environments.
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.