Table 2.

Summary of selected publications evaluating Mobius vs. ionization‐chamber measurement

Reference	Plan type	Delivery technique	Number of plans analyzed	Points analyzed per plan	Ionization chamber	Phantom	Reported percent difference range (%)	Reported average percent difference ± standard deviation (%)
Nelson et al. 4	Clinical	VMAT	12	1	IBA CC04	Rectangular solid water	NA	+1.5 ± 1.0a
		IMRT	28					−0.2 ± 1.0a
Fontenot et al. 5	TG 119	VMAT	4	2–3	Standard Imaging A1SL	Cylindrical solid water	−4.2 to +2.3	−1.6 ± 2.3b
		IMRT	4				−3.5 to +5.5	−0.6 ± 2.8b
Clemente‐Gutierrez et al. 3	TG 119	VMAT	4	1	IBA CC04	IBA easycube™	−1.0 to +2.8c	+0.9 ± 1.7b , c
	Clinical		12				−1.7 to +2.0c	+0.1 ± 1.0b , c
Present study	Clinical	VMAT	9	2	Standard Imaging A1SL	Mobius MVP™	−3.3 to +2.1	+0.2 ± 1.3
		IMRT	8				−3.1 to +1.8	−0.7 ± 1.0

^aNelson et al. reported only average differences.

^bFontenot et al. and Clemente‐Gutierrez et al. did not report average percent differences. Average percent differences reported here were calculated from available data.

^cClemente‐Gutierrez et al. reported differences in scatter‐plot form, so approximate results are shown here.