↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

The report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: Application of risk analysis methods to radiation therapy quality management

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, June 2016
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 (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
205 Mendeley
Title
The report of Task Group 100 of the AAPM: Application of risk analysis methods to radiation therapy quality management
Published in
Medical Physics, June 2016
DOI 10.1118/1.4947547
Pubmed ID
Authors

M. Saiful Huq, Benedick A. Fraass, Peter B. Dunscombe, John P. Gibbons, Geoffrey S. Ibbott, Arno J. Mundt, Sasa Mutic, Jatinder R. Palta, Frank Rath, Bruce R. Thomadsen, Jeffrey F. Williamson, Ellen D. Yorke

Abstract

The increasing complexity of modern radiation therapy planning and delivery challenges traditional prescriptive quality management (QM) methods, such as many of those included in guidelines published by organizations such as the AAPM, ASTRO, ACR, ESTRO, and IAEA. These prescriptive guidelines have traditionally focused on monitoring all aspects of the functional performance of radiotherapy (RT) equipment by comparing parameters against tolerances set at strict but achievable values. Many errors that occur in radiation oncology are not due to failures in devices and software; rather they are failures in workflow and process. A systematic understanding of the likelihood and clinical impact of possible failures throughout a course of radiotherapy is needed to direct limit QM resources efficiently to produce maximum safety and quality of patient care. Task Group 100 of the AAPM has taken a broad view of these issues and has developed a framework for designing QM activities, based on estimates of the probability of identified failures and their clinical outcome through the RT planning and delivery process. The Task Group has chosen a specific radiotherapy process required for "intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT)" as a case study. The goal of this work is to apply modern risk-based analysis techniques to this complex RT process in order to demonstrate to the RT community that such techniques may help identify more effective and efficient ways to enhance the safety and quality of our treatment processes. The task group generated by consensus an example quality management program strategy for the IMRT process performed at the institution of one of the authors. This report describes the methodology and nomenclature developed, presents the process maps, FMEAs, fault trees, and QM programs developed, and makes suggestions on how this information could be used in the clinic. The development and implementation of risk-assessment techniques will make radiation therapy safer and more efficient.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 205 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 4 2%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Unknown 199 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 35 17%
Researcher 34 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 15%
Student > Master 24 12%
Unspecified 23 11%
Other 56 27%
Unknown 3 1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 88 43%
Unspecified 42 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 41 20%
Engineering 14 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 2%
Other 13 6%
Unknown 3 1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 07 March 2017.
All research outputs
#1,376,164
of 13,155,608 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#92
of 5,537 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,068
of 265,310 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#10
of 303 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,155,608 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,537 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. 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 265,310 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 303 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 96% of its contemporaries.