Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29635534›Full record

Trial reportJapanese journal of clinical oncology2018

Efficacy of heparinoid moisturizer as a prophylactic agent for radiation dermatitis following radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

Kenji Sekiguchi, Keiko Akahane, Mami Ogita, Chiori Haga, Ryoko Ito, Satoru Arai, Yasushi Ishida, Yoichiro Tsukada, Jiro Kawamori

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Japanese journal of clinical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effects of oral supplementation to manage radiation dermatitis in cancer patients: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Kenji SekiguchiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, St. Luke's International Hospital.
Keiko AkahaneDepartment of Radiology, Saitama Medical Center Jichi Medical University, Saitama.
Mami OgitaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, St. Luke's International Hospital.
Chiori HagaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, St. Luke's International Hospital.
Ryoko ItoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, St. Luke's International Hospital.
Satoru AraiDepartment of Dermatology, St. Luke's International Hospital.
Yasushi IshidaCenter for Clinical Epidemiology, St. Luke's International Hospital.
Yoichiro TsukadaDepartment of Radiology, Toho University Omori Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan.
Jiro KawamoriDepartment of Radiation Oncology, St. Luke's International Hospital.
St. Luke's International Hospital · JPJichi Medical University · JPTaiho Oncology (United States) · USToho University Omori Medical Center · JPUniversity of Tokyo Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe application of heparinoid moisturizer for 2 weeks following whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT) was previously reported to significantly increase skin water content (WC) and help improve skin dryness and desquamation. The prospective open-label, randomized trial included an exploratory arm to investigate the preventive efficacy of heparinoid moisturizer for acute radiation dermatitis (ARD).

methodsBetween April 2011 and April 2013, patients receiving WBRT were assigned (1:2:2) to receive either: moisturizer for prophylaxis (group P), moisturizer starting 2 weeks after WBRT for treatment (group M), and no moisturizer (group C). This paper presents the results of comparison between the exploratory arm and no moisturizer group. Skin WC was measured prior to WBRT, on the last day of WBRT, and 2 weeks, 4 weeks and 3 months following WBRT. Signs and symptoms were also assessed.

resultsComparing two groups, WC values were significantly higher in group P until 4 weeks following WBRT. At 2 weeks following WBRT, mean WC values in group P and C were 38.5 ± 6.1 arbitrary units (a.u.) and 30.2 ± 7.8 a.u., respectively (P < 0.001). In group C, dryness was more severe at 2 and 4 weeks following WBRT and desquamation more severe until 3 months following WBRT. However, the erythema score showed no difference between the two groups. Regarding symptoms, group C pain scores on the last day of WBRT were significantly higher than in group P (P < 0.030).

conclusionsThe preventive application of heparinoid moisturizer has the potential of reducing skin desquamation and dryness in patients receiving WBRT.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsFemaleHeparinoidsHumansMastectomy, SegmentalMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRadiodermatitisHeparinoids

Identifiers

PMID29635534
PMCPMC5926546
OpenAlexW2796451476

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.