ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024
Patient-reported experience with the use of Mepitel Film for prevention of acute radiation dermatitis in breast cancer.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- DNAzyme hydrogels specifically inhibit the NLRP3 pathway to prevent radiation-induced skin injury in mice.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2025Article
- Mepitel film for the prevention of radiation dermatitis: A comprehensive review of its efficacy, side effects, physics measurements, patient- and clinician-reported outcomes.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors at 9 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposeMepitel Film (MF) has been demonstrated to reduce the severity of radiation dermatitis (RD) in patients receiving breast cancer radiotherapy (RT). The objective of this study was to characterize patient-reported experience with MF use, including its impact on daily activities and wellbeing. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis single-institution study analyzed anonymized responses to a questionnaire completed by patients who used MF for the prevention of RD during breast cancer RT.
resultsOf the 254 patients contacted, 192 patients completed the survey. Most patients disagreed or strongly disagreed that MF limited their ability to perform their daily activities, including household chores (88%, n = 169/191), their ability to work (83%, n = 157/189), or their ability to sleep (85%, n = 163/191). Furthermore, patients agreed or strongly agreed MF was comfortable on their skin (67%, n = 126/189) and protected their skin from rubbing against clothing (86%, n = 161/188). Some patients agreed or strongly agreed that MF affected their ability to shower (31%, n = 50/162), wear bras (28%, n = 51/185), and impacted their level of pruritus (35%, n = 67/189). However, most patients agreed or strongly agreed that their overall experience with MF was positive (92%, n = 173/189) and would recommend MF to a friend undergoing breast cancer RT (88%, n = 166/188).
conclusionMF use is associated with positive patient-reported experience during breast RT with minimal impact on daily activities.
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.