ArticleStrahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al]2026
Current practices in peer review in German radiation oncology: a nationwide survey.
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 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.
- Case Report: How to tailor adjuvant radiotherapy after open partial laryngeal surgery in the setting of a secure R0-resection?Frontiers in 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical peer review (PR) is a structured process in which medical professionals evaluate the quality of their colleagues' work to ensure compliance with healthcare standards. In radiation oncology (RO), intra-institutional PR has become established as a key quality assurance (QA) measure to improve treatment safety and effectiveness. While various guidelines and recommendations exist internationally, no uniform PR framework for radiation treatment decision-making and planning has been defined in Germany.
objectiveThis study aims to provide an overview of current PR practices in German RO departments, assess the degree of implementation of recommended PR measures, and identify areas for improvement.
methodsA digital survey among RO specialists was conducted from January 7 to February 7, 2025. The survey included structured questions on PR implementation, participation of different professional groups, timing, documentation, and technological infrastructure. Free-text fields allowed for additional insights. The collected data were analyzed descriptively.
resultsA total of 51 complete questionnaires-mainly from academic centers-were evaluated. Here, PR was widely implemented, particularly involving physicians and medical physicists, with 86% of departments performing case discussions and 82% PR of plans before the first radiation session. Most participants reported that PR effectively supports treatment planning and safety. However, PR for target delineation and image fusion was only implemented in 41% of cases. The inclusion of RTTs, nurses, and radiologists was rare. Documentation of PR processes, particularly attendance tracking and implementation of recommended changes, was inconsistent. Time constraints, personnel shortages, and high patient volume were the most frequently reported barriers to continuous PR.
conclusionWhile PR seems to be an integral part of radiation therapy in Germany, its structure and implementation throughout centers need to be elucidated. While some aspects, such as pre-therapeutic PR, are well established in our cohort, gaps remain in the integration of multidisciplinary teams, structured documentation, and contouring reviews. Further discussions within the German RO community and the development of national recommendations could help to standardize PR processes and improve their efficiency and effectiveness.
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.