↓ Skip to main content

Clinical use of electronic portal imaging: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 58

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Physics, May 2001
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

patent
38 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
257 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
372 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
Clinical use of electronic portal imaging: Report of AAPM Radiation Therapy Committee Task Group 58
Published in
Medical Physics, May 2001
DOI 10.1118/1.1368128
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael G. Herman, James M. Balter, David A. Jaffray, Kiarin P. McGee, Peter Munro, Shlomo Shalev, Marcel Van Herk, John W. Wong

Abstract

AAPM Task Group 58 was created to provide materials to help the medical physicist and colleagues succeed in the clinical implementation of electronic portal imaging devices (EPIDs) in radiation oncology. This complex technology has matured over the past decade and is capable of being integrated into routine practice. However, the difficulties encountered during the specification, installation, and implementation process can be overwhelming. TG58 was charged with providing sufficient information to allow the users to overcome these difficulties and put EPIDs into routine clinical practice. In answering the charge, this report provides; comprehensive information about the physics and technology of currently available EPID systems; a detailed discussion of the steps required for successful clinical implementation, based on accumulated experience; a review of software tools available and clinical use protocols to enhance EPID utilization; and specific quality assurance requirements for initial and continuing clinical use of the systems. Specific recommendations are summarized to assist the reader with successful implementation and continuing use of an EPID.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 372 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 5 1%
United States 4 1%
United Kingdom 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 351 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 59 16%
Other 57 15%
Student > Master 54 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 23 6%
Other 76 20%
Unknown 53 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 172 46%
Medicine and Dentistry 79 21%
Engineering 16 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 2%
Other 19 5%
Unknown 68 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 May 2024.
All research outputs
#5,446,629
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Medical Physics
#837
of 7,984 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,061
of 42,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Physics
#5
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,984 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 42,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.