ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2026
Assessing the quality of radiation oncology education in four German medical schools: a student perspective and comparison with DEGRO recommendations.
Article in Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al], 2026. 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.
- DEGRO consensus framework for undergraduate radiation therapy teaching in Germany: a white paper with integrated guidance on artificial intelligence in medical education.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026Article
- Shaping the future of radiation oncology education: results of a nationwide student survey from Germany.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe increasing importance of radiation oncology (RO) education worldwide drives a need for modernization of university curricula, particularly in anticipation of the new Licensing Regulation for Physicians (Ärztliche Approbationsordnung, ÄApprO) in Germany. This study evaluates RO education at four German medical schools and compares student perspectives with the recommendations of the academic radiation oncology consortium of the German Society of Radiation Oncology (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Radioonkologie, DEGRO) in order to highlight gaps and opportunities for curriculum improvement.
methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted among medical students from the universities in Aachen, Bonn, Cologne, and Düsseldorf (ABCD) from January to June 2022. The standardized digital questionnaire included 31 questions (Likert scale and open-ended items) assessing teaching quality, learning formats, and practical relevance. Descriptive and thematic analyses were performed.
resultsA total of 152 fully completed surveys were analyzed. Most students (76%) reported the use of clinical case examples, but only 13% had direct patient contact. Small-group teaching and hybrid learning formats were preferred. ABCD students emphasized the need for clearer learning objectives and improved differentiation of RO from related disciplines. While 50% supported increased semester hours, opinions were divided. Findings were largely consistent with DEGRO's recommendations, though discrepancies were observed in the organization of RO within medical curricula.
conclusionThis study identified key areas for improving RO education, including clearer learning objectives, more interactive and clinically relevant teaching, and increased opportunities for hands-on experience. Integrating these student-informed recommendations into future curriculum reforms may enhance training quality, promote engagement, and support interest in RO as a career.
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.