ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2026
Patient-specific breath-hold reproducibility in thoracic and abdominal radiotherapy: comparison of auditory and visual biofeedback.
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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.