ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2026
Resident Versus Teaching Faculty Perceptions of Radiation Treatment Plan Education: A National Survey.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 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.
- An interactive virtual dosimetrist for adjusting radiotherapy dose quality.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Evaluating a specialty-specific objective structured clinical examination and workplace-based assessment curriculum for radiation oncology postgraduate training: a prospective educational intervention study.BMC medical education · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Radiation treatment plan (RTP) evaluation is a critical, but often undertaught component of radiation oncology training. We hypothesized that radiation oncology residents and attendings would hold different attitudes regarding resident knowledge and comfort with RTP review. Methods and Materials: A web-based survey was developed and distributed to residents (35 items) and attendings (28 items) at 14 geographically diverse Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency programs. The survey consisted of a combination of multiple-choice questions, Likert-style, and free-text responses. Results: One hundred sixty-nine residents and 71 faculty received the survey (response rate: 43% and 28%, respectively). Approximately half (47%) of residents reported reviewing fewer than half of all treatment plans for their patients. While 20% of residents reported "often" or "always" reviewing treatment plans with an attending, 31% reported "rarely" or "never" doing so. More than half (56%) of residents felt they had inadequate exposure to RTP review. More than half (54%) did not feel confident or competent independently evaluating RTPs. In contrast, 85% of attendings reported reviewing at least half of all treatment plans alongside residents and 90% of faculty agreed or strongly agreed that residents were competent at RTP evaluation by the end of a rotation. Both residents and faculty perceived that challenges in schedule alignment and interest of the other party were common barriers to adequate RTP exposure and both agreed that a systematic approach to RTP review and a dedicated educational resource would improve the ability to evaluate a RTP. Conclusions: A majority of residents reported inadequate RTP education and a lack of confidence and competence in evaluating RTPs. There was discordance between resident and faculty perceptions of RTP education and resident competence, but both groups agreed that residents would benefit from a dedicated resource on RTP review. Future work should focus on the development of a systematic guideline and accompanying tools for RTP evaluation.
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.