Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 317

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Radiotherapy Protocol Deviations and Clinical Outcomes: A Meta-analysis of Cooperative Group Clinical Trials

Open access
Ohri, N., Shen, X., Dicker, A. P., Doyle, L. A., Harrison, A. S., Showalter, T. N.·2013·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Noncompliance with radiotherapy (RT) protocol guidelines has been linked to inferior clinical outcomes. We performed a meta-analysis of cooperative group trials to examine the association between RT quality assurance (QA) deviations and disease control and overall survival (OS). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for multi-institutional trials that reported clinical outcomes in relation to RT QA results. Hazard ratios (HRs) describing the association between RT protocol noncompliance and patient outcomes were extracted directly from the original studies or calculated from survival curves. Inverse variance meta-analyses were performed to assess the association between RT QA deviations and OS. A second meta-analysis tested the association between RT QA deviations and secondary outcomes, including local or locoregional control, event-free survival, and relapse. Random-effects models were used in cases of statistically significant (P < .10) effect heterogeneity. The Egger test was used to detect publication bias. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Eight studies (four pediatric, four adult) met all inclusion criteria and were incorporated into this analysis. The frequency of RT QA deviations ranged from 8% to 71% (median = 32%). In a random-effects model, RT deviations were associated with a statistically significant decrease in OS (HR of death = 1.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.28 to 2.35; P < .001). A similar effect was seen for secondary outcomes (HR of treatment failure = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.15 to 2.78; P = .009). No evidence of publication bias was detected. CONCLUSION: In clinical trials, RT protocol deviations are associated with increased risks of treatment failure and overall mortality.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/djt001

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 14 references

Cited by

See all 317

Metadata

Authors
Ohri, N., Shen, X., Dicker, A. P., Doyle, L. A., Harrison, A. S., & Showalter, T. N.
Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2013-03-06
Volume
105
Issue
6
Pages
387-393
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2164758846
Cited by
317
References
14
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Radiotherapy Protocol Deviations and Clinical Outcomes: A Meta-analysis of Cooperative Group Clinical Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/djt001
The paper
Ohri, N., Shen, X., Dicker, A. P., Doyle, L. A., Harrison, A. S., & Showalter, T. N. (2013). Radiotherapy Protocol Deviations and Clinical Outcomes: A Meta-analysis of Cooperative Group Clinical Trials. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djt001

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.