ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Routine machine quality assurance tests for a self-shielded gyroscopic radiosurgery system.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 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.
- Stereotactic radiosurgery using a self-shielded gyroscopic radiosurgery system for meningiomas: technical aspects and dosimetric results.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- A Beam Orientation Quality Assurance Framework for Gyroscopic Stereotactic Radiosurgery Systems.Cureus · 2025Article
- Routine machine quality assurance tests for a self-shielded gyroscopic radiosurgery system.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis report describes routine machine quality assurance (QA) (daily, monthly, and annual QA) tests for the Zap-X
methodsFollowing the recommendations of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group (AAPM TG)-142 and Medical Physics Practice guideline (MPPG) 8.b, routine machine QA tests for the Zap-X system were implemented. The implementation included (1) daily, monthly, and annual QA tests encompassing dosimetry, mechanical, safety and imaging tests, (2) QA methods of each test specific to the Zap-X, (3) a tolerance value for each test, and (4) necessary QA equipment.
resultsBaseline values and key results of daily, monthly, and annual QA tests are presented in this report. This report also discusses QA tests not adopted from TG 142 or MPPG 8.b (e.g., distance indicator) due to unique features of the Zap-X system as well as additional QA tests added from the vendor's recommendations (e.g., self-check) and from TG-135 recommendations (e.g., monthly end-to-end testing) because of similarities between Zap-X and CyberKnife systems.
conclusionsThe comprehensive information on routine machine QA tests presented in this report will assist Zap-X teams in other Neurosurgery centers or Radiation Oncology clinics in establishing and maintaining their QA programs until AAPM endorsed guidelines become available.
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.