ArticlePostepy dermatologii i alergologii2019
Overall clinical and trichoscopic analysis performed in patients who underwent pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis - initial trial preliminary report.
Article in Postepy dermatologii i alergologii, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC): updated systematic review using the IDEAL framework.The British journal of surgery · 2022Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCutaneous adverse events are among the remaining problematic issues of current oncology. The term peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) refers to the advanced cancer stage. The innovative treatment of PC includes the use of pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).
aimTo present a preliminary report from an initial trial aimed at an overall clinical and trichoscopic analysis performed in patients who underwent PIPAC treatment due to PC. MATERIAL AND
methodsFor all steps of this study we obtained the consent of the local bioethics commission #KB 196/2018. Three different hair assessment methods were used in our study: 1) general clinical and patient self-feeling assessment; 2) hair pull test; 3) and trichoscopic analysis.
resultsNo hair or scalp disorders were noted in the observation period. In the self-feeling test assessment the vast majority recognized their hair as being of comparable quality or even better in quality compared to previous forms of chemotherapy they had undergone. In all patients we observed a reduction of hair loss in the pull test in the hospitalization period. In trichoscopic analysis we found all determinants and signs of hair disorders in the assessed group.
conclusionsThe PIPAC is safe and is not a burdensome or aggressive form of therapy, especially according to the very important factors influencing the potential quality of hair and hair loss. The authors, however, realize that to obtain comprehensive results and evaluate this novel and promising method we need to perform more research without any limitations like those in our study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.