ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2025
Provider Practices and Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Improving Quality Practices in Radiation Oncology Peer Review.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Photon-counting CT for radiotherapy: Qualitative assessment of potential clinical value by semi-structured expert interviews.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
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
Purpose: Radiation oncology peer review evaluates case-specific qualitative treatment planning decisions. We sought to understand interdisciplinary perspectives on peer review to identify factors affecting stakeholder engagement and implementation of recommendations. Materials and Methods: Semistructured interviews and Likert surveys (scaled, 0-10) with radiation oncology peer review participants were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two independent coders utilized a grounded theory approach to extract dominant themes. Results: Participants included 6 academic and 3 community radiation oncologists, 2 residents, 2 medical physicists, 2 radiation therapists, 4 dosimetrists, and 1 industry representative. Thematic priorities of peer review included adherence to institutional guidelines, clinical background to inform decision-making, detection of rare errors, and education. Key facilitators included pretreatment peer review, clear planning guidelines, and feedback on peer recommendations. Barriers to recommendation adoption included resource limitations and a lack of prospective data guiding qualitative recommendations. Participants perceived benefits of peer review were assessed with Likert surveys with higher values placed on reducing practice variation (8.0) and education (7.6) and a lower value placed on the detection of medical errors (7.4) and reduction of treatment delivery incidents (6.9). When comparing Likert scores by participant role, nonphysicians rated the overall importance of peer review (mean, 9.8 vs 6.5, Conclusion: Participants in radiation oncology acknowledged the importance of peer review, but there was significant variation in the perceived benefits. A higher value was placed on the alignment of clinical practice and nonphysician participant education. Future processes to improve communication and prospective plan review were identified as beneficial to peer review-mediated plan changes.
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.