ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2025
Representation of Radiation Oncologists on National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guideline Committees.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiation Oncology Representation in German Evidence-Based Oncological Guidelines: 2025 Analysis of Participation and Parity from Women in Radiation Oncology Working Group of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO).Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- American Society of Clinical Oncology 2021 Annual Meeting Highlights for Radiation Oncologists.Advances in radiation oncologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline committees (GCs) play a vital role in defining the standard of care for cancer management. Equitable specialty representation is crucial for unbiased recommendations and perspectives. This study examines the specialty and leadership representation on NCCN GCs, with a focus on radiation oncologists (ROs). Methods and Materials: This cross-sectional observational study evaluated committee member characteristics on NCCN treatment GCs available in 2020 and subset of committees with guidelines containing category 1 or 2A radiation therapy recommendations. Collected data included member characteristics and committee roles. Interspecialty variance was evaluated via χ Results: A total of 1768 NCCN committee members were identified, representing 54 NCCN GCs with a median committee size of 33 (range, 22-38). Among all members: 47.6% were medical oncologists (MOs), 20.9% were surgical oncologists (SOs), and 8.9% were RO; 22.6% were other specialists. Women accounted for 37.6% (316/841) of MO, 34.2%(54/158) of RO and 22.8% (84/369) of SO members ( Conclusion: There is low representation of ROs on NCCN GCs and in leadership roles, which may limit the discussion during guideline development and negatively impact the diversity of perspectives in management recommendations.
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.