↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 8.a.: Linear accelerator performance tests

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#27 of 2,075)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
5 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
231 Mendeley
Title
AAPM Medical Physics Practice Guideline 8.a.: Linear accelerator performance tests
Published in
Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/acm2.12080
Pubmed ID
Authors

Koren Smith, Peter Balter, John Duhon, Gerald A. White, David L. Vassy, Robin A. Miller, Christopher F. Serago, Lynne A. Fairobent

Abstract

The purpose of this guideline is to provide a list of critical performance tests in order to assist the Qualified Medical Physicist (QMP) in establishing and maintaining a safe and effective quality assurance (QA) program. The performance tests on a linear accelerator (linac) should be selected to fit the clinical patterns of use of the accelerator and care should be given to perform tests which are relevant to detecting errors related to the specific use of the accelerator. A risk assessment was performed on tests from current task group reports on linac QA to highlight those tests that are most effective at maintaining safety and quality for the patient. Recommendations are made on the acquisition of reference or baseline data, the establishment of machine isocenter on a routine basis, basing performance tests on clinical use of the linac, working with vendors to establish QA tests and performing tests after maintenance. The recommended tests proposed in this guideline were chosen based on the results from the risk analysis and the consensus of the guideline's committee. The tests are grouped together by class of test (e.g., dosimetry, mechanical, etc.) and clinical parameter tested. Implementation notes are included for each test so that the QMP can understand the overall goal of each test. This guideline will assist the QMP in developing a comprehensive QA program for linacs in the external beam radiation therapy setting. The committee sought to prioritize tests by their implication on quality and patient safety. The QMP is ultimately responsible for implementing appropriate tests. In the spirit of the report from American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 100, individual institutions are encouraged to analyze the risks involved in their own clinical practice and determine which performance tests are relevant in their own radiotherapy clinics.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 231 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 16%
Other 30 13%
Student > Master 28 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 11%
Student > Bachelor 16 7%
Other 32 14%
Unknown 61 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 85 37%
Medicine and Dentistry 33 14%
Engineering 12 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 4%
Unspecified 5 2%
Other 14 6%
Unknown 72 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 21 December 2021.
All research outputs
#2,494,060
of 26,052,823 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
#27
of 2,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,089
of 331,333 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics
#1
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,052,823 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,075 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 331,333 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 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.