Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41739291›Full record

ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2026

Patient-specific breath-hold reproducibility in thoracic and abdominal radiotherapy: comparison of auditory and visual biofeedback.

Masahide Saito, Naoki Sano, Ryota Tozuka, Hikaru Nemoto, Koji Ueda, Takafumi Komiyama, Kan Marino, Hiroshi Onishi

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Masahide SaitoDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo, Yamanashi, 409-3898, Japan. masahides@yamanashi.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8636-4045
Naoki SanoDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo, Yamanashi, 409-3898, Japan.
Ryota TozukaDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo, Yamanashi, 409-3898, Japan.
Hikaru NemotoDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo, Yamanashi, 409-3898, Japan.
Koji UedaDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo, Yamanashi, 409-3898, Japan.
Takafumi KomiyamaDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo, Yamanashi, 409-3898, Japan.
Kan MarinoDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo, Yamanashi, 409-3898, Japan.
Hiroshi OnishiDepartment of Therapeutic Radiology, University of Yamanashi, 1110 Shimokato, Chuo, Yamanashi, 409-3898, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThis study aimed to compare patient-specific reproducibility and comfort of breath-holding using auditory and visual biofeedback guidance in a respiratory monitoring system. MATERIALS AND

methodsA respiratory monitoring device that tracks abdominal and chest wall motion was used to provide auditory and visual feedback. Forty patients with thoracic or abdominal tumors underwent three computed tomography scans under each guidance method. Breath-hold reproducibility was assessed by measuring the distance between an anatomical landmark and the tumor. Patient preferences for the guidance method were also recorded.

resultsBoth guidance methods demonstrated good breath-hold reproducibility. The mean displacement of the landmark-tumor distance was 1.26 ± 0.82 mm with visual guidance and 1.32 ± 0.72 mm with auditory guidance, with no statistically significant difference. No correlation was found between the two methods in individual patients. While 22 patients preferred visual guidance, 12 preferred auditory guidance, and 6 had no preference, the preferred method did not always correspond to improved reproducibility.

conclusionRegarding the reproducibility of breath-holding, both auditory and visual guidance methods demonstrated high precision. However, no significant differences were observed between the two approaches, and patient preference did not appear to affect reproducibility.

Indexed as

Abdominal NeoplasmsBiofeedback, PsychologyBreath HoldingFeedback, SensoryThoracic NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsTomography, X-Ray ComputedAudio-visual feedbackBreath-holdReproducibilityRespiratory motion management

Identifiers

PMID41739291
PMCPMC13222199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.