Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39051046›Full record

ReviewAsia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing2024

Mepitel film for the prevention of radiation dermatitis: A comprehensive review of its efficacy, side effects, physics measurements, patient- and clinician-reported outcomes.

Olivia Kuszaj, Marley Day, Matt Wronski, Kimberly Corbin, Patries Herst, Rosemary Hill, Dirk Rades, Cindy Wong, Irene Karam, Francois Gallant and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Mepilex Lite dressing in the management of radiation dermatitis-a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. 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

14 authors.

Olivia KuszajOdette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Marley DayOdette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Matt WronskiOdette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Kimberly CorbinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Patries HerstDepartment of Radiation Therapy, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Rosemary HillLions Gate Hospital, North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Dirk RadesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Cindy WongUnion Oncology Centre, Kowloon, Hong Kong S.A.R., China.
Irene KaramOdette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Francois GallantOdette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Shing Fung LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, National University Cancer Institute, National University Hospital, Singapore.
Shirley Sw TseDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Kowloon Central Cluster, Hospital Authority, Hong Kong S.A.R, China.
Edward ChowOdette Cancer Centre, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Henry WongDepartment of Oncology, Princess Margaret Hospital, Kowloon West Cluster, Hospital Authority, Hong Kong S.A.R, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This review aimed to summarize the benefits, side effects, physics measurements, and patient- and clinician-reported outcomes of Mepitel film (MF) in preventing radiation dermatitis (RD) for cancer patients. Methods: The online database PubMed was searched from inception to April 15, 2024 with the search terms "Mepitel film" or "Mepitel." Articles of any study design evaluating MF for the prevention of RD were included. Non-human studies were excluded. Results: The database search identified 119 articles and 13 of them were included in this review. Across these studies, MF was found to be beneficial in reducing RD and improved patient- and clinician-reported outcomes in breast and head and neck cancers. Side effects of MF included itchiness, acne, allergic reaction, tightness, discomfort, and poor film adherence, but patient dropouts were uncommon. MF did not cause a bolus effect or increased skin dose in physics measurements. Conclusions: MF is a safe and effective intervention for preventing acute RD. It should be recommended in breast cancer patients where the data is more robust. Further research is needed to evaluate MF's efficacy on patients with different skin tones, its cost-effectiveness, and identifying patients who most benefit from MF relative to other effective interventions.

Indexed as

Acute radiation dermatitisAcute skin toxicityCancerMepitel filmPatient-reported outcomes

Identifiers

PMID39051046
PMCPMC11268185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.