Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41583332›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2026

Resident Versus Teaching Faculty Perceptions of Radiation Treatment Plan Education: A National Survey.

Graham Boyd, Derealise Garcia-Almedina, Liam Van Benthuysen, Thomas P Howard, Rachel B Jimenez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Graham BoydHarvard Radiation Oncology Program, Departmet of Radiation Oncology, Mass General Brigham, Boston, Massachusetts.
Derealise Garcia-AlmedinaPonce Health Sciences University School of Medicine, Ponce, Puerto Rico.
Liam Van BenthuysenDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Thomas P HowardHarvard Radiation Oncology Program, Departmet of Radiation Oncology, Mass General Brigham, Boston, Massachusetts.
Rachel B JimenezDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID41583332
PMCPMC12828758

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.