SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Optimizing peer review rounds in radiation oncology: a scoping review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: In radiation oncology (RO), peer review (PR) rounds are essential for ensuring quality care, enhancing team communication, and identifying areas for improvement in radiotherapy (RT) plans. However, time constraints, lengthy discussions, and imbalanced team contributions often hinder effective PR. This scoping review examined novel tools and processes to enhance PR efficiency and experience in modern academic centers. Materials and methods: We queried six databases [MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and MEDLINE (Ebsco)] and the gray literature, yielding 8,955 citations. Studies were excluded if they (1) were focused on comparisons involving paper-based rounds, (2) lacked clear relevance to PR processes in RT, or (3) did not explicitly address efficiency within PR activities. Results: Twelve studies focusing on PR structure and efficiency-related processes were included. Of the identified, 11/12 explored various structural formats to improve facilitation, 5/12 discussed automated tools, and 2/12 evaluated checklists. Only half of studies reported a PR-associated time burden, with 2/12 reporting positive post-implementation changes. The remaining studies did not measure comparative times. Conclusions: This scoping review reveals the lack of work on innovative approaches to optimize PR rounds in RO, despite the commonly reported participation barrier of high time commitment. Our findings highlight the importance of integrating automation in order to streamline facilitation methods and tools such as checklists to reduce inefficiency, given PR's essential role in patient safety and clinical learning. Future research should prioritize the development and evaluation of time-saving strategies and tools for PR in RO workflow to optimize its sustainability and impact.
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.