ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2025
Open or closed: Experience of head and neck radiotherapy masks - A mixed-methods study.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aquaporin-1 gene therapy as a novel method to treat radiation-induced salivary gland damage: The case for adeno-associated virus vectors.Oral oncology · 2026Review
- Feasibility of transitioning to marker-less immobilisation using optical surface guidance in head and neck cancer treatment: a study at territory state cancer centre in a developing country.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Accuracy and workflow efficiency of surface-guided open-face vs. closed-face masks in SRT/SRS for brain metastases.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Healing Beams: Radiation and Radiotherapy in Novels, Poems, Music, Film, Painting.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn radiotherapy for head and neck cancer, a mask is used to immobilise the head and shoulders. An open mask that does not cover the face is expected to cause less anxiety, but there is need to further investigate the patients' experience of open versus closed masks. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate patient preferences for open or closed masks and whether an open mask can reduce discomfort and anxiety for patients.
methodsTwenty participants were treated in alternating weeks using open and closed masks. Their distress was evaluated through semi-structured interviews and patient-reported outcome measures.
resultsWhen using the open mask, it took longer to position the patient correctly. The closed mask felt more confining and could induce a sense of claustrophobia. Participants employed both internal and external strategies to cope with the stressful situation. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) showed a significant reduction in anxiety over time during the treatment period, but no significant difference between the masks. When participants chose which mask to use for the final treatments, 12 chose the open mask, while 8 chose the closed mask. In addition to the 20 analysed participants, two participants withdrew from the study because they could only tolerate the open mask, one due to anxiety and the other due to swelling.
conclusionsThe open mask seems to provide a less confined experience but may lead to greater difficulties in achieving the correct treatment position. While both masks can be viable options for most patients, some cannot tolerate closed masks but do tolerate open masks.
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.