Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40808699›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2025

A Modified Failure Mode and Effects Analysis for Linear Accelerator Quality Assurance.

Nicole Jessop, Jamie Fairfoul

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nicole JessopRadiotherapy Department, North-West Anglia NHS Foundation trust, Peterborough, UK.
Jamie FairfoulRadiotherapy Department, North-West Anglia NHS Foundation trust, Peterborough, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is a proactive method for evaluating failure modes and the consequences of those failures. In radiation therapy, a risk-based approach such as this can be used to inform and drive the quality assurance (QA) program, help prioritize QA, evaluate the impact of any changes to the QA process, and raise awareness of the potential failure modes. A classical FMEA can result in identical risk priority number (RPN) values for different combinations of occurrence, severity, and detectability. This assumes that these 3 values hold the same significance. In radiation therapy, high-severity failure modes can lead to severe clinical consequences and so should be prioritized. Methods and Materials: A classical FMEA was carried out for the Varian TrueBeam linear accelerator QA at Peterborough City Hospital. This highlighted the issue of high-severity failure modes appearing relatively low in the FMEA table because of low overall RPN values. Therefore, a modified FMEA using a new clinical severity factor (S Results: None of the failure modes resulted in very high RPN values. Some failure modes with high severities, such as gating system beam hold, breathing trace display, and backup timer operation, had relatively low overall RPN scores. The new modified FMEA minimized this effect by moving these failure modes up the FMEA table. For the modified FMEA, the higher scoring failure modes all relate to machine parameters associated with beam delivery and are important for techniques used for most patients. Therefore, the modified FMEA proposed gave clinically relevant results. Conclusions: A new modified FMEA is proposed for linear accelerator QA in radiation therapy. This method is recommended to prevent high-severity failure modes from appearing low in the FMEA table and thus being given a low overall priority.

Identifiers

PMID40808699
PMCPMC12344781

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.