ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Initial three- and half-year machine performance assessment of a superficial radiation therapy unit.
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 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.
- Initial three- and half-year machine performance assessment of a superficial radiation therapy unit.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis work reports on results of periodic machine quality assurance (QA) tests for our superficial radiation therapy (SRT) unit (SRT-100 Vision) performed for the first three- and half- year.
methodsResults of machine warm-up, dosimetry, mechanical, safety and imaging QA tests for our SRT-100 Vision unit were reviewed and analyzed. Dosimetry tests included output constancy, backup timer, timer accuracy, beam quality (half value layer [HVL]), applicator factors (AFs), absolute output calibration, output constancy with varying x-ray tube head rotation, output reproducibility, output linearity, timer and end-effect error, percent depth dose (PDD) verification and congruence between radiation field and applicator size. Mechanical tests encompassed unit stability as well as applicator integrity and indicators. Safety tests consisted of visual and audio monitors, beam-on indicator, interlocks, and energy/filter indicators. Imaging tests for ultrasound covered functional check, spatial integrity, and image quality check. The QA tests were performed for three kilovoltage (kV) x-ray energies (50, 70, and 100 kV
resultsDaily mandatory machine warm-up was successfully completed on each day of treatment. The results of all dosimetry tests for three energies were within the recommended tolerance. Daily, and monthly outputs and annual absolute outputs were < ± 3.0%, < ± 2.0%, and < ± 1.3%, respectively. Backup timer displayed timer set ± 0.0%. Timer accuracy was < ± 1.0 sec. HVLs and AFs were < ± 1.1% and < ± 0.3%, respectively. Outputs for different head angles were < ± 1.0% and output reproducibility was within 0.1%. Output linearity was < ± 0.6% and end-effect errors were < ± 0.0006 min. PDDs were < ± 2.2%. Congruence was < ± 0.5 mm. Monthly mechanical tests confirmed mechanical robustness of our unit. Daily safety features were verified to be functional each day. Monthly imaging tests for ultrasound showed good functionality, image quality, and spatial integrity meeting the set tolerance.
conclusionsThe QA results demonstrated high performance and stability of our SRT-100 Vision unit over the first three and a half years of operation.
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.