ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2026
Adverse events in gynaecological radiotherapy: Better Reporting, Interpretation and Dissemination to Generate Evidence (BRIDGE).
Article in Technical innovations & patient support 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate adverse events (AE) reporting is essential in gynaecological radiotherapy, as multimodal approaches become increasingly common. While these strategies improve outcomes, they may increase the risk of complications affecting patients' quality of life. The BRIDGE (Better Reporting, Interpretation and Dissemination to Generate Evidence) initiative aims to improve consistency and understanding in AE assessment across the radiotherapy community. This analysis investigated whether interpretation of the same clinical information leads to variability in AE grading using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v6.0. An interactive poll conducted during an ESTRO webinar used two clinical scenarios. Among 71 attendees, 30 responded to the poll and 23 consented to share their data. Variation in severity scoring was observed, especially for subjective and lower-grade AEs, whereas higher agreement occurred when clinical details aligned with CTCAE terminology. Findings highlight the importance of training, clear clinical context, and integration of patient-reported outcomes to support person-centred care.
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.