↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

The management of respiratory motion in radiation oncology report of AAPM Task Group 76a)

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, September 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

7 patents


1210 Dimensions

Readers on

670 Mendeley
2 CiteULike
The management of respiratory motion in radiation oncology report of AAPM Task Group 76a)
Published in
Medical Physics, September 2006
DOI 10.1118/1.2349696
Pubmed ID

Paul J. Keall, Gig S. Mageras, James M. Balter, Richard S. Emery, Kenneth M. Forster, Steve B. Jiang, Jeffrey M. Kapatoes, Daniel A. Low, Martin J. Murphy, Brad R. Murray, Chester R. Ramsey, Marcel B. Van Herk, S. Sastry Vedam, John W. Wong, Ellen Yorke


This document is the report of a task group of the AAPM and has been prepared primarily to advise medical physicists involved in the external-beam radiation therapy of patients with thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic tumors affected by respiratory motion. This report describes the magnitude of respiratory motion, discusses radiotherapy specific problems caused by respiratory motion, explains techniques that explicitly manage respiratory motion during radiotherapy and gives recommendations in the application of these techniques for patient care, including quality assurance (QA) guidelines for these devices and their use with conformal and intensity modulated radiotherapy. The technologies covered by this report are motion-encompassing methods, respiratory gated techniques, breath-hold techniques, forced shallow-breathing methods, and respiration-synchronized techniques. The main outcome of this report is a clinical process guide for managing respiratory motion. Included in this guide is the recommendation that tumor motion should be measured (when possible) for each patient for whom respiratory motion is a concern. If target motion is greater than 5mm, a method of respiratory motion management is available, and if the patient can tolerate the procedure, respiratory motion management technology is appropriate. Respiratory motion management is also appropriate when the procedure will increase normal tissue sparing. Respiratory motion management involves further resources, education and the development of and adherence to QA procedures.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 670 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 7 1%
Spain 7 1%
United States 6 <1%
Japan 6 <1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 8 1%
Unknown 627 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 150 22%
Researcher 141 21%
Student > Master 103 15%
Other 88 13%
Unspecified 44 7%
Other 144 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 285 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 174 26%
Unspecified 71 11%
Engineering 71 11%
Computer Science 36 5%
Other 33 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 October 2018.
All research outputs
of 12,731,604 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
of 5,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 257,606 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
of 117 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,731,604 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,492 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 257,606 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 117 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.