ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Developing reference plans for evaluating global clinical trials credentialing and PSQA systems.
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 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.
- Developing reference plans for evaluating global clinical trials credentialing and PSQA systems.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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop a practical framework for creating a diverse set of validated reference plans (varying in complexity) and implement a workflow to introduce beam modeling, calibration, and delivery errors into the reference cohort to test and compare various dosimetry audit methodologies.
methodsSixteen IMRT and VMAT reference plans were created, using RayStation software, for four phantom geometries based on established credentialing cases from participating Global Harmonization Group (GHG) members. These reference plans were first validated in a multi-ion-chamber phantom. Nine dosimetric errors (perturbations) were introduced into the plans by modifying beam model and/or delivery parameters (MLC-offset, MLC-transmission, leaf-tip-width, PDD, beam calibration, and MLC-position) based on documented community distributions of errors; this produced 144 plans. The dose impact on the clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) was determined, and a range of classifications was developed to determine if the perturbed plan should pass or should fail an audit.
resultsIntroducing errors into the reference plans impacted each plan differently. Dose perturbations ranged from <1% to >10% in the mean dose to the CTV and <10% to >30% in the near maximum dose to OAR (D0.03). The 144 plans included clear "acceptable" and "unacceptable" scenarios, with significant changes in dose (relative to baseline reference values), as well as near pass/fail threshold results. Plan complexity was found to have a strong impact on dose deviation, and the mean MLC Gap metric was found to best capture this relationship.
conclusionThis study presented a framework to develop a set of reference plans and perturbations that can be used to assess and compare various audit and PSQA methodologies. The GHG has developed this framework as part of our ongoing work to test the comparability of their audit systems; this framework supports our work of aligning international dosimetry audits across the globe.
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.