Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Topical agent therapy for prevention and treatment of radiodermatitis: a meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Topical agent therapy for prevention and treatment of radiodermatitis: a meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Topical agent therapy for prevention and treatment of radiodermatitis: a meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Topical agent therapy for prevention and treatment of radiodermatitis: a meta-analysis
2013
Overview
Background
Radiodermatitis (RD) is a common side effect during radiotherapy. Various topical agents have been tried to be applied on RD. However, the efficiency of topical agents applied on radiotherapy is still uncertain.
Objective
This study aims to assess the efficiency of the topical agents in the prevention and treatment of RD.
Methods
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Pubmed, and Medline were searched for relevant reports. Quantitative analysis was carried out to evaluate the efficiency of topical agents in the prevention and treatment of RD.
Results
Twenty reports involving 3,098 patients were included: 2,406 patients for prophylactic trials and 692 for treatment trials, respectively. For prophylactic trials, primary meta-analysis indicated that using topical agents could not reduce the incidence of grade 2 and higher RD (
P
= 0.128, RR = 0.90, 95 % CI = 0.78–1.03) with a high heterogeneity (
P
= 0.000,
I
2
= 71.5 %). In subgroup analyses, heterogeneity disappeared by excluding reports with low Jadad score (≤3) (
P
= 0.292,
I
2
= 15.2 %), and still no significant difference was found between the topical agent group and control group (
P
= 0.625, RR = 0.98, 95 % CI = 0.89–1.07). In addition, for treatment trials, topical agents failed to increase the incidence of wound healing (
P
= 0.784, RR = 1.01, 95 % CI = 0.92–1.12) with a high heterogeneity (
P
= 0.067,
I
2
= 51.5 %).
Conclusions
Topical agents could not prevent or treat RD effectively. New type of agents should be developed to improve the efficiency based on the pathophysiology of RD.
Publisher
Springer-Verlag,Springer,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
