Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39898327›Full record

ReviewClinical and translational radiation oncology2025

ESTRO guidelines for developing questionnaires in survey-based radiation oncology research.

Amanda Webster, Lotte S Fog, Emma Hall, Peter S N van Rossum, Daan Nevens, Pierre Montay-Gruel, Pierfrancesco Franco, Elizabeth Joyce, Nuria Jornet, Catharine H Clark and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Axillary management in patients with cN + breast cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy: pattern of practice in Italy.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Green radiotherapy: aitro survey on sustainability awareness among Italian radiation therapists.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
  5. A dedicated institutional clinical workflow and peer-review meeting for reirradiation.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Amanda WebsterCancer Division, University College London Hospital (UCLH), London, United Kingdom.
Lotte S FogAlfred Health Radiation Oncology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Emma HallClinical Trials and Statistics Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom.
Peter S N van RossumDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Amsterdam UMC, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Daan NevensIridium Netwerk, Radiotherapy Department, Antwerp REsearch in Radiation Oncology (AReRO), Center for Oncological Research (CORE), Integrated Personalized and Precision Oncology (IPPON), University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Pierre Montay-GruelIridium Netwerk, Radiotherapy Department, Antwerp REsearch in Radiation Oncology (AReRO), Center for Oncological Research (CORE), Integrated Personalized and Precision Oncology (IPPON), University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Pierfrancesco FrancoDepartment of Translational Medicine (DIMET), University of Eastern Piedmont, Novara, Italy.
Elizabeth JoyceRadiotherapy Department, Royal Marsden Hospital, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Nuria JornetServei de Radiofisica i Radioproteccio, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
Catharine H ClarkDepartment of Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, University College London (UCL), London, United Kingdom.
Jenny BertholetDivision of Medical Radiation Physics and Department of Radiation Oncology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Survey-based research is increasingly used in radiation oncology, yet survey-based research methodology is often unfamiliar in the field. This guideline offers comprehensive instructions for conducting survey-based research in radiation oncology, covering critical aspects such as survey design, validation, dissemination, analysis, and reporting. Tailored to professionals, it emphasizes the importance of methodological rigour to ensure reliable and actionable data collection. Dissemination strategies are highlighted to maximize response rates and enhance data completeness across diverse clinical, research and industrial settings. Rigorous analysis techniques are discussed to uncover insights that optimize operational efficiencies and inform evidence-based practices. Transparent reporting is underscored as crucial for enhancing the credibility and applicability of findings. This guideline aims to be a practical resource for enhancing research standards in survey-based research for researchers and practitioners in radiation oncology.

Indexed as

GuidelinesQuestionnairesRadiation oncologySurvey-based research

Identifiers

PMID39898327
PMCPMC11786078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.