ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology2026
Disease-Site Specific Peer Review Implementation: From Chart Rounds to the Treatment Couch.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology, 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
Purpose: The impact of disease site-specific peer review on radiation treatment planning recommendations is not well understood. We implemented a standardized peer review checklist to evaluate factors influencing recommendations and their implementation during disease site-specific peer review. Methods and Materials: A 7-item checklist was completed prospectively during weekly or biweekly meetings in 4 disease site-specific peer review groups, including (1) radiation approach, (2) dose/fractionation, (3) prescription accuracy, (4) organ-at-risk contours, (5) target volumes, (6) plan quality evaluations, and (7) setup imaging. Review comments were divided into (A) education/discussion without change recommendation, (B) minor suggestion/optional modifications, or (C) major comment requiring plan modification. Rates of comment types and implementation of plan changes were tracked. Statistical analysis was conducted using the 2-proportion Z-test, Welch's Results: A total of 1311 peer reviews in 914 unique patients were recorded over 6 months. The average review duration was 2 minutes 32 seconds, with significant differences across disease site groups ( Conclusions: We successfully implemented a peer review checklist in the context of disease site-specific peer review meetings. There is significant variability in comments and their implementation across checklist items and disease site groups. Iterative review significantly increased the probability of treatment plan changes.
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.