↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Stereotactic body radiation therapy: The report of AAPM Task Group 101

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user
patent
5 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
1733 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1254 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Stereotactic body radiation therapy: The report of AAPM Task Group 101
Published in
Medical Physics, July 2010
DOI 10.1118/1.3438081
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stanley H. Benedict, Kamil M. Yenice, David Followill, James M. Galvin, William Hinson, Brian Kavanagh, Paul Keall, Michael Lovelock, Sanford Meeks, Lech Papiez, Thomas Purdie, Ramaswamy Sadagopan, Michael C. Schell, Bill Salter, David J. Schlesinger, Almon S. Shiu, Timothy Solberg, Danny Y. Song, Volker Stieber, Robert Timmerman, Wolfgang A. Tomé, Dirk Verellen, Lu Wang, Fang‐Fang Yin

Abstract

Task Group 101 of the AAPM has prepared this report for medical physicists, clinicians, and therapists in order to outline the best practice guidelines for the external-beam radiation therapy technique referred to as stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). The task group report includes a review of the literature to identify reported clinical findings and expected outcomes for this treatment modality. Information is provided for establishing a SBRT program, including protocols, equipment, resources, and QA procedures. Additionally, suggestions for developing consistent documentation for prescribing, reporting, and recording SBRT treatment delivery is provided.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 1,254 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 8 <1%
Canada 6 <1%
United States 5 <1%
Japan 5 <1%
Germany 2 <1%
Belgium 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 1221 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 179 14%
Other 163 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 147 12%
Student > Master 126 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 79 6%
Other 262 21%
Unknown 298 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 380 30%
Physics and Astronomy 338 27%
Engineering 41 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 3%
Computer Science 15 1%
Other 67 5%
Unknown 373 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 27 May 2022.
All research outputs
#1,646,367
of 24,453,338 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#55
of 7,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,419
of 98,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#1
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,453,338 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,869 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 98,804 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 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.