↓ Skip to main content

A Prostate Fossa Contouring Instructional Module: Implementation and Evaluation

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the American College of Radiology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Prostate Fossa Contouring Instructional Module: Implementation and Evaluation
Published in
Journal of the American College of Radiology, May 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.02.030
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jillian R. Gunther, Stanley L. Liauw, Seungtaek Choi, Abdallah S.R. Mohamed, Nikhil G. Thaker, Clifton D. Fuller, Christopher J. Stepaniak, Prajnan Das, Daniel W. Golden

Abstract

Radiation oncology trainees frequently learn to contour through clinical experience and lectures. A hands-on contouring module was developed to teach delineation of the postoperative prostate clinical target volume (CTV) and improve contouring accuracy. Medical students independently contoured a prostate fossa CTV before and after receiving educational materials and live instruction detailing the RTOG approach to contouring this CTV. Metrics for volume overlap and surface distance (Dice similarity coefficient, Hausdorff distance (HD), and mean distance) determined discordance between student and consensus contours. An evaluation assessed perception of session efficacy (1 = "not at all" to 5 = "extremely"; reported as median[interquartile range]). Non-parametric statistical tests were used. Twenty-four students at two institutions completed the module, and 21 completed the evaluation (88% response). The content was rated as "quite" important (4[3.5-5]). The module improved comfort contouring a prostate fossa (pre 1[1-2] vs. post 4[3-4], p<.01), ability to find references (pre 2[1-3] vs. post 4[3.5-4], p<0.01), knowledge of CT prostate/pelvis anatomy (pre 2[1.5-3] vs. post 3[3-4], p<.01), and ability to use contouring software tools (pre 2[2-3.5] vs. post 3[3-4], p=.01). After intervention, mean DSC increased (0.29 to 0.68, p<0.01) and HD and mean distance both decreased, respectively (42.8 to 30.0, p<.01; 11.5 to 1.9, p<.01). A hands-on module to teach CTV delineation to medical students was developed and implemented. Student and expert contours exhibited near "excellent agreement" (as defined in the literature) after intervention. Additional modules to teach target delineation to all educational levels can be developed using this model.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 17%
Researcher 5 14%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 8 23%
Unknown 7 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Mathematics 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 8 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 July 2016.
All research outputs
#15,518,326
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American College of Radiology
#2,392
of 3,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#192,828
of 349,759 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American College of Radiology
#66
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,479 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 349,759 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.