ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Development of a hybrid automated chart checking, data collection, and analysis 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 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.
- Four-year experience with an in-house treatment management platform to streamline departmental operations in radiation oncology.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Article
- Development of a hybrid automated chart checking, data collection, and analysis 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo describe the creation and clinical deployment of an integrated stand-alone hybrid automated chart review platform that is comprised of a database, oncology information system (OIS) interfaces, and a user interface (UI).
methodsA consensus checklist was developed to homogenize the practices of clinical physics staff and physics residents for all plan types. Critical review of the single checklist's items led to the creation of a new concept, the "plan attribute," which permits specialization of the final checklist based on the characteristics of a particular plan. Only relevant and applicable tests are automatically populated to form a plan checklist based on plan attributes. Each populated checklist in this hybrid automation platform includes elements of full automation, steps or functions that use automation to augment a human input or effort, as well as steps completed by humans. Logging and categorizing of deficiencies found during the chart check was also implemented.
resultsChart check data was analyzed for an over 4-year time span starting from the clinical deployment of the tool in October 2020. This analysis included a total of 427 073 tests spread among 7882 initial chart checks. The recorded deficiencies at three triage levels showed 7116 minor errors, 679 major errors, and 71 plan rejections. The plan rejection level is the highest chart deficiency, which required the plan to be rejected and sent back for serious remediation and/or new plan generation.
conclusionThis report describes the successful development and implementation of a hybrid-automated chart checking program. The software leverages modern database and software design to improve the per case performance and experience of a multi-user group. Chart check database permits high-level review and improvement in all aspects of plan check and user performance.
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.