Table 5.

Comparison of setup errors among studies.

		AP (mm)	CC (mm)	LR (mm)	Vector (mm) $(\text{mean}\pm \text{SD})$ a	Yaw (°)	Roll (°)	Pitch (°)
Interfractional Setup Errors	Guckenberger et al. (3)	0.7(1.2)	0.9(1.9)	0.8(1.4)		1.1(1.7)	1.1(1.4)	0.7(1.5)
	Tryggestad et al. (5)	0.9(0.8)	1.2(1.0)	0.7(0.9)	$2.1\pm 1.0$	0.9(0.7)	0.8(0.8)	0.9(0.6)
	Our study (pre‐correction)	1.0(1.0)	1.1(1.3)	1.7(1.2)	$2.7\pm 1.4$	0.7(0.6)	0.6(0.5)	0.8(0.4)
	Our study (residual setup error)	0.2(0.3)	0.2(0.3)	0.2(0.3)	$0.4\pm 0.3$	0.1(0.2)	0.1(0.2)	0.2(0.3)
Intrafractional Setup Errors	Nakata et al. (8)	1.2(2.0)	0.6(0.6)	0.4(1.1)		0.1(0.8)	0.4(1.0)	1.5(1.0)
	Our study	0.3(0.6)	0.5(0.5)	0.4(0.5)		0.4(0.4)	0.5(0.4)	0.2(0.4)
	Tryggestad et al.(5) a	$-0.1\pm 0.4$	$-0.3\pm 0.6$	$0.0\pm 0.3$	$0.7\pm 0.8$	$-0.1\pm 0.6$ $-0.2\pm 0.5$	$-0.1\pm 0.4$
	Our study a	$-0.1\pm 0.6$	$-0.1\pm 0.6$	$-0.2\pm 0.5$	$0.9\pm 0.6$	$0.0\pm 0.5$	$0.0\pm 0.6$	$-0.1\pm 0.4$

^aResults are shown in format of mean ± SD for all patients; otherwise, results are in format of $\mathrm{\Sigma }(\sigma )$.

$\text{SD}=\text{standard deviation}$; $\mathrm{\Sigma }=\text{systematic error}$; $\mathrm{\sigma }=\text{systematic error}$.