ReviewCureus2026
General Aspects of Identification, Prevention, and Protection From Medical Errors in Radiation Oncology.
Review in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical errors represent an inherent risk in all areas of medicine, but in radiation oncology, they are of particular concern due to the complexity of treatment pathways and the potential severity of consequences. While legal systems often equate medical error with negligent treatment, clinicians typically view medical error as an unintended deviation occurring despite adherence to accepted standards of care. This conceptual discrepancy contributes to fear-driven practice, underreporting of adverse events, and missed opportunities for system-level learning. In this in-depth review, we synthesize current evidence on the definitions, mechanisms, and classification of medical errors, with a specific focus on radiation oncology. We critically analyze error patterns across pre-treatment, treatment, and post-treatment phases, emphasizing the interplay between human factors, system vulnerabilities, and technological complexity. Beyond technical considerations, this review provides a novel integrative perspective by linking guideline-based practice, incident learning systems, safety culture, communication strategies, and emerging artificial intelligence-assisted quality assurance approaches. Using Serbia as an illustrative example of a developing country, we highlight how legal frameworks centered predominantly on criminal liability, combined with high clinical workload and limited national reporting systems, may inadvertently discourage transparency and learning from errors. We propose a multidimensional safety framework that integrates protocol harmonization, non-punitive reporting, structured error disclosure, clinician support mechanisms, and advanced technological solutions. By shifting the focus from individual blame to system-based prevention and resolution, this review offers transferable insights for improving patient safety, enhancing clinician well-being and strengthening safety culture in radiation oncology across diverse healthcare settings.
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.