Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42032436›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2026

EQual Rubric Evaluation of the Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group Entrustable Professional Activities.

Brett Wagner, Steve Braunstein, Ryan Brisson, Alexandra De Leo, Allison Garda, Jillian Gunther, Christina Henson, Ariel E Hirsch, Jordan Holmes, Leah Katz and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

16 authors.

Brett WagnerRush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. brett_s_wagner@rush.edu.
Steve BraunsteinUniversity of California San Francisco, CA, San Francisco, USA.
Ryan BrissonUniversity of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Alexandra De LeoUniversity of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Allison GardaMayo Clinic, MN, Rochester, USA.
Jillian GuntherThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, TX, Houston, USA.
Christina HensonStephenson Cancer Center, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Ariel E HirschBoston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, MA, Boston, USA.
Jordan HolmesIndiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Leah KatzColumbia University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Malcolm MattesRutgers Cancer Institute, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Jessica Moore SchusterUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Jeremy PriceFox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Kevin ShiueIndiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Horatio ThomasKaiser Permanente, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Daniel W GoldenRush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. dan_golden@rush.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2808-722X

Funding

American Association for Cancer Education n/aFoundation for the National Institutes of Health NIH CTSA UL1TR002389
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) have emerged as tools that translate competency-based education into clinical practice by defining discrete, assessable tasks that residents perform independently. In 2023, the Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) developed 52 EPAs to establish a competency-based framework for United States radiation oncology residency training. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of ROECSG EPAs as discrete units of work, entrustable and essential tasks of the profession, and education-focused tools using the EQual metric. An electronic survey was distributed to subject-matter experts, including attending radiation oncologists at academic medical centers (teaching faculty) and senior residents. Participants were able to recommend revision and provide specific recommendations for modification. EPAs averaging below 4.07, a previously established threshold, were identified for revision. Results are reported as EPA mean ± standard deviation. 14/17 (82.4%) participants completed the survey including 13 radiation oncology teaching faculty and one senior resident. 4/13 (30.8%) were program directors and 5/13 (38.5%) were associate program directors. The mean rating for all EPAs was 4.39 ± 0.30. 7/52 (13.5%) EPAs scored below the cutoff of 4.07 including EPA2 (3.65 ± 0.53), 7 (3.97 ± 0.73), 18 (3.77 ± 0.68), 19 (3.56 ± 0.77), 34 (4.06 ± 0.70), 43 (3.81 ± 0.74), and 47 (3.76 ± 0.76). 12/52 EPAs scored within one standard deviation of the cutoff. Overall, 45 of the proposed EPAs were rated as high quality, and seven EPAs were recommended for revision. Further refinement and systematic implementation of these revisions are necessary.

Identifiers

PMID42032436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.