ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026
Reliability of radiotherapist assessment for radiation induced skin-toxicity: investigational study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Enhancing the quality of radiotherapy for skin cancer requires systematic evaluation of radiation-induced skin toxicity, particularly acute toxicity, which affects ~90% of patients receiving ionizing radiation. This study assessed the reliability of a newly developed visual grading tool, the Clinician Erythema Assessment-Radiation Therapy (CEA-RT), designed to help radiation clinicians evaluate early radiation dermatitis. Methods and materials: The CEA-RT tool utilizes a 5-point scale. Its reliability was evaluated by analyzing intra-rater and inter-rater agreement among clinicians, as well as its concordance with an expert reference standard against a reference standard. The assessment was conducted using digital images. Results: The study's results showed high intra-rater reliability, with 98% of scores falling within ±1 grade and consistent grading for regions of interest (ROI). However, inter-rater agreement was only fair, indicating variability among different clinicians. Concordance with an expert reference standard against a reference standard was moderate, with 25-30% of therapists achieving high concordance and over 50% showing moderate agreement. Conclusions: The findings support the CEA-RT scale as a reliable tool for individual use. However, study limitations included variable time gaps between sessions, recall bias, fatigue, and reliance on digital images. The results emphasize the need for additional training,
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.