Topic Highlight
Copyright ©2014 Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Clin Oncol. Dec 10, 2014; 5(5): 845-857
Published online Dec 10, 2014. doi: 10.5306/wjco.v5.i5.845
Table 6 Statistical predictors of use of single fraction schedules
CaseFactorOR for use of SF (95%CI)P
Uncomplicated-spine
Hartsell Case 2 (1998, United States)Respondents recommending doses < 30Gy:NRNR
Longer time in practice
Academic practice
Practice in the Southwest
Chow Case 2 (Canada, 2000) Chow Case 3 (Canada, 2000)No differences based on country of specialty training or year training completedNRNR
Fairchild Case 3University practice2.08 (1.35-3.19)0.001
(Intl, 2009)Private practice0.27 (0.12-0.61)0.002
Trained in United States0.17 (0.10-0.28)< 0.001
Practice in Aust/NZ2.44 (1.43-4.18)0.001
Roos Case 3 (Aust/NZ, 2000)No difference based on trainees vs specialists, public vs private practice, years of experience, % workload palliative, between Aust vs NZ or between Aust statesNRNR
Complicated-neuropathic pain
Fairchild Case 4University practice2.31 (1.33-4.00)0.003
(Intl, 2009)Trained in US0.22 (0.11-0.43)< 0.001
Roos Case 4 (Aust/NZ, 2000)No difference based on trainees vs specialists, public vs private practice, years of experience, % workload palliative, between Aust vs NZ or between Aust statesNRNR