ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2026
An automated, workload-adjusted framework for continuous quality assessment in clinical radiation oncology.
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundQuality assessment in radiation oncology is essential to ensure safe, timely, and effective care. Although multiple quality indicators have been proposed, their routine implementation is often limited by heterogeneous definitions, manual data collection, and the lack of adjustment for clinical workload and treatment complexity.
methodsWithin a national quality initiative, a structured revision of previously proposed quality indicators was performed. A survey among heads of Radiation Oncology departments was conducted to assess the relevance, feasibility, and management value of existing indicators. Based on survey results, a reduced set of prioritized indicators was selected and operationally defined for automated extraction from routine radiotherapy information systems. In parallel, a workload-based complexity stratification was developed, defining six levels for external beam radiotherapy and five levels for brachytherapy. Automated data extraction was implemented using commonly deployed clinical information systems, enabling continuous indicator monitoring without additional manual data entry.
resultsForty-one department heads participated in the survey, with strong support for reinforcing quality indicator use. The original set of 29 indicators was reduced to 17 prioritized indicators covering structure, process, and outcome domains. Process indicators related to treatment preparation times for conventional and special techniques showed the highest acceptance. Automated extraction resulted in a standardized quality report enabling routine monitoring of indicator performance and data quality. The workload-based complexity stratification revealed substantial heterogeneity across treatment techniques and enabled contextual interpretation of activity and performance.
conclusionsThis study presents an automated and workload-adjusted framework for continuous quality assessment in Radiation Oncology. By integrating prioritized quality indicators, workload-based complexity stratification, and automated data extraction, the proposed approach supports sustainable quality monitoring and facilitates meaningful inter-center comparison. Although developed within a national initiative, the methodological principles are broadly applicable to other healthcare systems and technologically complex oncological settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42081183What 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.