ReviewJournal of medical imaging and radiation oncology2025
Faculty of Radiation Oncology 2022 Workforce Census.
Review in Journal of medical imaging and 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.
- Gender disparities in academic radiation oncology research: A narrative review.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2027Review
- Faculty of Radiation Oncology 2022 New Zealand Workforce Census.Journal of medical imaging and radiation 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis paper reports the key findings of the Faculty of Radiation Oncology 2022 workforce census. This is the first census since the COVID-19 pandemic and questions have been updated to assess the impact on RANZCR trainees and fellows. This report focuses on the analysis of respondents from Australia, New Zealand and overseas members, with a separate paper to follow focusing exclusively on New Zealand respondents.
methodThe census was conducted in mid-late 2022 with many questions repeated from previous censuses. New questions were asked about theranostics, working remotely, hypofractionation and the impact of COVID-19 on work practices.
resultsThe census was sent to 591 radiation oncologists with an overall response rate of 52%. Almost half of respondents (n = 94/210; 45%) indicated that COVID-19 had no impact on the uptake of hypofractionation. Hypofractionation was most used by respondents in breast and prostate treatment (n = 134/200; 67% and n = 112/194; 58% respectively). Five respondents (n = 5/270; 2%) currently practise in theranostics, with the majority treating thyroid cancers within the public sector. Just under half (n = 81/167; 49%) of invited trainees responded. The majority felt that COVID-19 had a negative impact on their training. There has been a decrease in the number of new fellows seeking to complete further fellowships. Employment remains at very high levels for new fellows ( > 98%).
conclusionThe impact of COVID-19 on local practices and workloads was not as significant as seen overseas. There continues to be an increasing trend of radiation oncologists working in the private sector. The lack of indigenous representation within our profession continues to be an area that needs further attention.
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.