Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34613833›Full record

ReviewTechnology in cancer research & treatment

Review of the Terminology Describing Ionizing Radiation-Induced Skin Injury: A Case for Standardization.

Luke R Burnett, Ryan T Hughes, Alexis F Rejeski, Lauren T Moffatt, Jeffrey W Shupp, Robert J Christy, Karen M Winkfield

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Technology in cancer research & treatment. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Radiation-induced skin injury in the head and neck region: pathogenesis, clinics, prevention, treatment considerations and proposal for management algorithm.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2024
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Shedding light on the management of acute radiation dermatitis: insight from the MASCC Oncodermatology study group.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
  9. Review of optical reporters of radiation effectsJournal of biomedical optics · 2023
    Review
  10. 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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Luke R BurnettKeraNetics, Inc., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5618-342X
Ryan T Hughes12279Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Alexis F RejeskiKeraNetics, Inc., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Lauren T Moffatt121577MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Jeffrey W Shupp121577MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
Robert J Christy110230US Army Institute for Surgical Research, San Antonio Texas, USA.
Karen M Winkfield12328Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
KeraNetics (United States) · USGeorgetown University · USMedStar Washington Hospital Center · USUnited States Army Institute of Surgical Research · USVanderbilt University Medical Center · USWake Forest University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ionizing radiation causes injury to the skin that produces a complex clinical presentation that is managed by various paradigms without clear standards. The situation is further complicated by the fact that clinicians and researchers often use different terms and billing codes to describe the spectrum of cutaneous injury. There is, however, general agreement between the two most commonly-used diagnostic scales, the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and in their use to describe skin injury following radiation therapy. These scales are typically used by radiation oncologists to quantify radiation dermatitis, a component of the radiation-related disorders of the skin and subcutaneous tissue family of diagnoses. In rare cases, patients with severe injury may require treatment by wound care or burn specialists, in which case the disease is described as a "radiation burn" and coded as a burn or corrosion. Further compounding the issue, most US government agencies use the term Cutaneous Radiation Injury to indicate skin damage resulting from large, whole-body exposures. In contrast, the US Food and Drug Administration approves products for radiation dermatitis or "burns caused by radiation oncology procedures." A review of the literature and comparison of clinical presentations shows that each of these terms represents a similar injury, and can be used interchangeably. Herein we provide a comparative review of the commonly used terminology for radiation-induced skin injury. Further, we recommend standardization across clinicians, providers, and researchers involved in the diagnosis, care, and investigation of radiation-induced skin injury. This will facilitate collaboration and broader inclusion criteria for grant-research and clinical trials and will assist in assessing therapeutic options particularly relevant to patient skin pigmentation response differences.

Indexed as

Terminology as TopicBurnsHumansRadiation, IonizingRadiodermatitiscutaneous radiation injuryionizing radiation-induced skin injuryradiation burnradiation dermatitisradiation injury terminologyradiation skin injury

Identifiers

PMID34613833
PMCPMC8504211
OpenAlexW3203385413

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.