FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3204282752> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3204282752 endingPage "S95" @default.
• W3204282752 startingPage "S94" @default.
• W3204282752 abstract "Purpose/Objective(s)Pre-treatment peer review has been suggested to be useful within Radiation Oncology. With the COVID-19 pandemic, our previously-applied face-to-face format was replaced with a video-based format. We herein quantify the usefulness of daily video-based peer review within a busy radiation oncology practice.Materials/MethodsWe have been using an internet-based format for our daily peer review since mid-March 2020. All cases in the department are reviewed prior to planning and a subset, typically stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) cases, are reviewed twice: once for contours and once for the planned dose. A meeting participant collected data regarding attendance, case type, and recommendations made in the meetings. An anonymous survey was sent to all participants to assess their opinion of this daily meeting. The number and type of recommendations resulting from the video-based peer review were compared to the results of a similar review conducted in the pre-COVID (face-to-face) era using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test.ResultsFrom September 11, 2020 – December 23, 2020, data was gathered from 62 peer-review sessions. The mean number of attendees each day was 43 (range 32-60), including 9 MD faculty (range 4-12) and 7 MD residents (range 5-8). The average number of cases reviewed each day was 9 (range 3-17). In total, 533 cases were reviewed; 74% had no recommendations, 8% had mild, 15% had moderate, and 3% had major recommendations leading to significant changes in treatment planning. Among cases reviewed during the pre-COVID era 73% had none, 10% had mild, 10% had moderate, and 7% had major recommendations. The rate of major recommendations during the current video-format era is significantly decreased from before (3% vs 7%, P < 0.001). Twenty-nine participants responded to the survey. For the video-based peer review session, 97% reported that it adds value to the department, 83% reported that it provides an excellent learning environment, and 93% reported that it allows for a collegial debate/conversation.ConclusionVideo-based peer review can be effective; 18% of case reviews resulted in moderate/major recommendations. While comparisons across time are imperfect, this is almost identical to the 17% observed in the pre-COVID (face-to-face) era, which is reassuring. However, the rate of major recommendations from the current video-format era were lower than in the pre-COVID (face-to-face) era, suggesting that the robustness of daily peer review may be reduced with video. Nevertheless, the majority of participants responding to the survey (83-97%) still find the overall process useful. Pre-treatment peer review has been suggested to be useful within Radiation Oncology. With the COVID-19 pandemic, our previously-applied face-to-face format was replaced with a video-based format. We herein quantify the usefulness of daily video-based peer review within a busy radiation oncology practice. We have been using an internet-based format for our daily peer review since mid-March 2020. All cases in the department are reviewed prior to planning and a subset, typically stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) cases, are reviewed twice: once for contours and once for the planned dose. A meeting participant collected data regarding attendance, case type, and recommendations made in the meetings. An anonymous survey was sent to all participants to assess their opinion of this daily meeting. The number and type of recommendations resulting from the video-based peer review were compared to the results of a similar review conducted in the pre-COVID (face-to-face) era using a two-tailed Fisher's exact test. From September 11, 2020 – December 23, 2020, data was gathered from 62 peer-review sessions. The mean number of attendees each day was 43 (range 32-60), including 9 MD faculty (range 4-12) and 7 MD residents (range 5-8). The average number of cases reviewed each day was 9 (range 3-17). In total, 533 cases were reviewed; 74% had no recommendations, 8% had mild, 15% had moderate, and 3% had major recommendations leading to significant changes in treatment planning. Among cases reviewed during the pre-COVID era 73% had none, 10% had mild, 10% had moderate, and 7% had major recommendations. The rate of major recommendations during the current video-format era is significantly decreased from before (3% vs 7%, P < 0.001). Twenty-nine participants responded to the survey. For the video-based peer review session, 97% reported that it adds value to the department, 83% reported that it provides an excellent learning environment, and 93% reported that it allows for a collegial debate/conversation. Video-based peer review can be effective; 18% of case reviews resulted in moderate/major recommendations. While comparisons across time are imperfect, this is almost identical to the 17% observed in the pre-COVID (face-to-face) era, which is reassuring. However, the rate of major recommendations from the current video-format era were lower than in the pre-COVID (face-to-face) era, suggesting that the robustness of daily peer review may be reduced with video. Nevertheless, the majority of participants responding to the survey (83-97%) still find the overall process useful." @default.
• W3204282752 created "2021-10-11" @default.
• W3204282752 creator A5022495669 @default.
• W3204282752 creator A5029612579 @default.
• W3204282752 creator A5036816456 @default.
• W3204282752 creator A5077622006 @default.
• W3204282752 creator A5085651347 @default.
• W3204282752 creator A5090193008 @default.
• W3204282752 creator A5091205507 @default.
• W3204282752 date "2021-11-01" @default.
• W3204282752 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W3204282752 title "The Utility of Video-Based Pre-Treatment Peer Review in the COVID Era" @default.
• W3204282752 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.222" @default.
• W3204282752 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/8536228" @default.
• W3204282752 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34700668" @default.
• W3204282752 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3204282752 type Work @default.
• W3204282752 sameAs 3204282752 @default.
• W3204282752 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3204282752 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3204282752 hasAuthorship W3204282752A5022495669 @default.
• W3204282752 hasAuthorship W3204282752A5029612579 @default.
• W3204282752 hasAuthorship W3204282752A5036816456 @default.
• W3204282752 hasAuthorship W3204282752A5077622006 @default.
• W3204282752 hasAuthorship W3204282752A5085651347 @default.
• W3204282752 hasAuthorship W3204282752A5090193008 @default.
• W3204282752 hasAuthorship W3204282752A5091205507 @default.
• W3204282752 hasBestOaLocation W32042827521 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConcept C138368954 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConcept C2778173179 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConcept C2779134260 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConcept C2992520072 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConcept C3008058167 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConcept C50522688 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConcept C509974204 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConcept C524204448 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConceptScore W3204282752C126322002 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConceptScore W3204282752C138368954 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConceptScore W3204282752C141071460 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConceptScore W3204282752C162324750 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConceptScore W3204282752C17744445 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConceptScore W3204282752C19527891 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConceptScore W3204282752C199539241 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConceptScore W3204282752C2778173179 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConceptScore W3204282752C2779134260 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConceptScore W3204282752C2992520072 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConceptScore W3204282752C3008058167 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConceptScore W3204282752C50522688 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConceptScore W3204282752C509974204 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConceptScore W3204282752C512399662 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConceptScore W3204282752C524204448 @default.
• W3204282752 hasConceptScore W3204282752C71924100 @default.
• W3204282752 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W3204282752 hasLocation W32042827521 @default.
• W3204282752 hasLocation W32042827522 @default.
• W3204282752 hasLocation W32042827523 @default.
• W3204282752 hasLocation W32042827524 @default.
• W3204282752 hasOpenAccess W3204282752 @default.
• W3204282752 hasPrimaryLocation W32042827521 @default.
• W3204282752 hasRelatedWork W1528970778 @default.
• W3204282752 hasRelatedWork W2016845086 @default.
• W3204282752 hasRelatedWork W2046690490 @default.
• W3204282752 hasRelatedWork W2060301445 @default.
• W3204282752 hasRelatedWork W2079577539 @default.
• W3204282752 hasRelatedWork W2090895625 @default.
• W3204282752 hasRelatedWork W2091426349 @default.
• W3204282752 hasRelatedWork W2390398707 @default.
• W3204282752 hasRelatedWork W4234901696 @default.
• W3204282752 hasRelatedWork W4235482288 @default.
• W3204282752 hasVolume "111" @default.
• W3204282752 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3204282752 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3204282752 magId "3204282752" @default.
• W3204282752 workType "article" @default.