ReviewClinical and translational radiation oncology2025
Systematic review of the tools and outcomes for the assessment of acute radiation dermatitis severity.
Review in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 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.
- Critical reflections on pulsed electromagnetic field therapy for acute radiodermatitis: implications from Mohamed et al.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Ionizing radiation: molecular mechanisms, biological effects, and therapeutic targets.Molecular biomedicine · 2026Review
- AI-enabled precision prediction and proactive management of cutaneous toxicities in cancer immunoradiotherapy (ICI+RT).Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Post-oncologic skin health: cutaneous recovery and rehabilitation after cancer treatments.Frontiers in oncology · 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute radiation dermatitis (ARD) is a common adverse effect experienced by patients undergoing radiation therapy. Effective assessment tools to accurately measure and manage ARD's impact on patients' quality of life and treatment outcomes is needed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diverse tools and outcome measures used in the assessment of ARD. A systematic review of MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cochrane was conducted for records 1946-March 2024. A total of 423 studies, including 227 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), were included in the analysis. The review identified 58 distinct tools utilized in the assessment of ARD including clinician and patient-reported outcomes, quality-of-life instruments, and biophysical measures. The most frequently employed tools were the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group criteria, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Skindex-16, Visual Analogue Scale, Dermatology Life Quality Index, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life C30, Radiation-Induced Skin Reaction Assessment Scale, Skin Toxicity Assessment Tool, photography, reflectance spectrophotometry, and the corneometer. This investigation into ARD assessment tools reveals a broad application of instruments but is limited by a pervasive lack of consensus, preventing the endorsement of a standardized toolset. The variability in tool use necessitates further research, particularly high-quality RCTs, to establish validated and reliable measures. Future publications, including Delphi consensus-based recommendations, are anticipated to address these gaps, aiming to standardize ARD assessment methodologies.
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.