ArticleBMC nursing2026
Prevention and management of radiation dermatitis for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a best practice implementation project.
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Risk factors for severe radiation-induced dermatitis in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients undergoing radiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRadiation dermatitis(RD) is one of the most common acute toxicities of radiotherapy, affecting approximately 85%~95% of patients. Severe RD can substantially impair quality of life and may compromise treatment continuity, thereby reducing the effectiveness of radiotherapy. Despite the availability of clinical guidelines, RD prevention and management in routine practice remain inconsistent.
aimThis best practice implementation project aimed to implement an evidence-based strategies for the prevention and management of RD in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), improve compliance with best-practice recommendations, and reduce severe RD.
methodsThis was an evidence-based audit and feedback project that used a three-phase approach at a tertiary cancer center in China. We conducted an evidence-based audit-and-feedback project using the JBI Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System (JBI PACES) and Getting Research into Practice (GRiP) framework at a tertiary cancer center in China. Phase 1 involved developing 15 evidence-based audit criteria and conducting a baseline audit (22 patients; 26 nurses). Phase 2 identified barriers to best practice and implemented targeted GRiP-informed strategies. Phase 3 conducted a follow-up audit using the same criteria to evaluate changes in compliance and inform sustainability.
resultsAfter implementation, the incidence of severe RD(≥ Grade Ⅲ) decreased from 9.09%(2/22) to 0% (0/22 cases) at follow up. A comparison between the pre-implementation and post-implementation findings showed significant improvements for all audit criteria, and patients’ compliance with RD management protocol increased to between 59.09% and 100%. Notably, compliance increased from 0% to 100% for system-level criteria (protocol availability and multidisciplinary team establishment) and several key practice criteria.
conclusionsImplementing this evidence-based RD prevention and management program improved practice compliance and reduced severe RD among patients with NPC.
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.