TABLE I.

Responses to nine items on the targeted peer reviewer questionnaire

Question	Reviewer ratings (n=4)
	Lowest quality (1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	Highest quality (5)
Rate the guideline development methods.	0	0	0	2	2
Rate the guideline presentation.	0	0	0	3	1
Rate the guideline recommendations.	0	0	2	1	1
Rate the completeness of reporting.	0	0	2	0	2
Does this document provide sufficient information to inform your decisions? If not, what areas are missing?	0	0	1	2	1
Rate the overall quality of the guideline report.	0	0	1	1	2

	Strongly disagree (1)	(2)	Neutral (3)	(4)	Strongly agree (5)
I would make use of this guideline in my professional decisions.	0	0	0	2	2
I would recommend this guideline for use in practice.	0	0	0	2	2
What are the barriers or enablers to the implementation of this guideline report? ■ This guideline needs to be disseminated to the intended audience or users. ■ This guideline provides a good understanding of how to prescribe this therapy to patients. ■ All radiation programs are not, as yet, equipped or positioned with the developed expertise to implement lung SBRT based on the guideline and should acquire that expertise in the setting of clinical trials using SBRT in order that a high level of quality assurance is used to move in this direction. Otherwise, patients who are candidates should be offered referral to programs where lung SBRT has been adopted with acceptable quality assurance for planning and treatment delivery.