ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2024
Clinical experience of a tattoo application device.
Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The use of tattoos for radiation therapy (RT) treatment is common practice. The Comfort Marker 2.0 (CQ Medical, Iowa, USA) has been designed to apply tattoos with a controlled depth injection, potentially resulting in tattoos that fade over time. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical implementation of the Comfort Marker 2.0 tattoo device including the patient experience and clinical workflow. Methods: Patients undergoing RT treatment for breast cancer were invited to participate in this prospective pilot study. Patients completed a questionnaire after the planning session rating the level of pain experienced during tattoo application. Staff rated ease of use after each patient recording any feedback regarding the device. To evaluate tattoo fading, patients were followed up at 6 and 12 months after treatment to assess if tattoos could be visualised. Results: Between August and December 2021, 50 breast cancer patients were recruited to the study. All patients received at least 3 tattoos. The majority of patients (80%) rated their pain between not hurting or hurting a little. More than 85% of staff indicated the device was easy or very easy to use. The three most common areas staff identified for improvement were: cordless device (39.1%), pen size (20.3%) and consumable rubbish (13.0%). All tattoos remained visible at the final follow up appointment. Conclusion: Clinical implementation of the Comfort Marker tattoo device has been successful. Overall, patients found the process reasonably painless and staff found the device easy to use, providing a consistent result.
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.